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.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 192

Night of 29th-30th November 1944

Jesus and Saint Paul—Christianity, a Jewish manoeuvre—Christianity and Communism—National Socialism, the implacable enemy of everything Jewish.

Jesus was most certainly not a Jew. The Jews would never have handed one of their own people to the Roman courts; they would have condemned him themselves. It is quite probable that a large number of the descendants of the Roman legionaries, mostly Gauls, were living in Galilee, and Jesus was probably one of them. His mother may well have been a Jewess.

Jesus fought against the materialism of his age, and, therefore, against the Jews.

Paul of Tarsus, who was originally one of the most stubborn enemies of the Christians, suddenly realised the immense possibilities of using, intelligently and for other ends, an idea which was exercising such great powers of fascination. He realised that the judicious exploitation of this idea among non-Jews would give him far greater power in the world than would the promise of material profit to the Jews themselves. It was then that the future St. Paul distorted with diabolical cunning the Christian idea. Out of this idea, which was a declaration of war on the golden calf, on the egotism and the materialism of the Jews, he created a rallying point for slaves of all kinds against the elite, the masters and those in dominant authority.

The religion fabricated by Paul of Tarsus, which was later called Christianity, is nothing but the Communism of today.

Bormann intervened. Jewish methods, he said, have never varied in their essentials. Everywhere they have stirred up the plebs against the ruling classes. Everywhere they have fostered discontent against the established power. For these are the seeds which produce the crop they hope later to gather.

Everywhere they fan the flames of hatred between peoples of the same blood. It is they who invented class-warfare, and the repudiation of this theory must therefore always be an anti-Jewish measure. In the same way, any doctrine which is anti-Communist, any doctrine which is anti-Christian must, ipso facto, be anti-Jewish as well.

The National Socialist doctrine is therefore anti-Jewish in excelsis, for it is both anti-Communist and anti-Christian. National Socialism is solid to the core, and the whole of its strength is concentrated against the Jews, even in matters which appear to have a purely social aspect and are designed for the furtherance of the social amenities of our own people.

The Fuehrer concluded: Burgdorff has just given me a paper which deals with the relationship between Communism and Christianity. It is comforting to see how, even in these days, the fatal relationship between the two is daily becoming clearer to the human intelligence.


Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

What is national socialism

Source: Metapedia


National Socialism is the opposite of international finance capitalism, i.e. the opposite of globalization. Under National Socialism, engineers would not lose their jobs to outsourcing, and great industrial cities would not be disintegrating and turning back to farmland. There would be no such thing as Goldman Sachs, or the Federal Reserve, or big box stores full of merchandise from China. If China were National Socialist too, the Chinese economy would not depend on exports. Instead of a globalized economy, there would be independent national economies. Countries would generate capital internally instead of depending on foreign investment. International trade would still exist (you could still drive a Honda if that’s what you want), but it would be a fraction of what it is now. The financial system would be simple and straightforward; there would be no such thing as “derivatives”. The economy would be based on industry and education, not on finance, insurance, real estate, casinos, and prisons.

There would be no dumbing-down policy in the schools or anywhere else.

There would be no TSA pat-downs. No such thing happened in the Reich, nor could it happen. An obscenity like that would be inconceivable. When you go through security at an American airport, the Zionists literally have you by the balls. Under National Socialism, the Zionists would not be running things, with all that that implies for both foreign and domestic policy.
Instead of dying, the oceans would be flourishing. On land, desertification would be reversed. The “cancer industry” would not exist. The environmental and psychological causes of cancer would be addressed, and cancer would be rare. There would be no need to argue about how to pay for health care, because most people would normally stay healthy without “health care” as we know it today.

Students would not have to go into debt to get an education.
Under National Socialism, cities would not be full of drunks and homeless people. There would be no such thing as multiculturalism, political correctness, or affirmative action. Schools would not teach kids to listen to hip-hop. First world countries would not turn themselves into third world countries. Just the opposite: National Socialism represents the gentrification of the world.

I did not know most of this until recently.

Like most people, I grew up believing that National Socialism was a Very Bad Thing. I thought it was all about war and exterminating people. If that were true, then of course it would be a Very Bad Thing. But in fact that is not what National Socialism is about.

When I was in the 9th grade, my world history teacher gave me an extra credit assignment. She asked me to read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, and write a report on it. That was a pretty stiff assignment for a 9th grader. I read the book all the way through and wrote a report, but the report was not very good. She gave me an A, but in my own mind I knew I did not deserve an A. Some of what I wrote was cribbed from Encyclopedia Britannica. My teacher expected a little too much from her star student. At that age I was not quite ready to read a book of that length and density, hold it all in my mind at once, and write a paper about it. I guess that’s where this page is coming from. Fifty years later, I am still working on that assignment. Anyway I believed everything in the book. And why not? It never occurred to me that my teacher might be misinformed, or that mainstream historians such as William Shirer might be lying. I accepted what they told me.

Since then I have discovered that what happened in Germany in the Hitler era was very different from what they tell us. On this page I am going to present some of the facts that my world history teacher should have taught me. This is what every high school student should know about National Socialism.

The question “what is National Socialism” can be approached in two ways: (1) what was Hitler’s original idea? and (2) what happened in the Third Reich?

Published in: on December 26, 2014 at 9:21 pm  Comments (18)  
Tags: , ,

Extermination • IV

In a Louis XVI-style bedroom

In May 2012 I received a surprise in the cursed house.* Someone had left a box on the outside edge of the restroom for visitors. Opening it I saw something that amazed me: a little, divine animal! It looked like a bunny of short life but it was so beautiful and graceful that it could not be a rabbit, I thought. It took me time to recognize that it was actually a white bunny, but so otherworldly I felt that I had difficulty in reconciling my two hemispheres: one saying it could only be a divine creature, and another saying it was a little rabbit who had come to the world not long ago.

Almost abandoned in a box without custody, it had been one of many bunnies of a birthday gift to the children of a party bought by one of my irresponsible brothers, the father of the celebrated child. In a subsequent chapter I tell you how I got to interact with the creature, whom I rescued from an uncertain fate because of the pettiness of my family and Mexicans in general. Previously I had never interacted in such way with an animal; in fact, I never wanted to have pet even though I did not get married and have no offspring. But seeing such defenseless being at the mercy of the modified apes in my family moved me to adapt it. I’ll tell stories but in this chapter all I can add is that, over time, the white rabbit would help me to finally find my way out of the inverted world of Alice.

Just under two and a half years later I would receive a shock that changed the planned architecture of this book. The newspaper The Mirror reported that four young males of Seaham in Durham, England, between seventeen and twenty raped, tortured and murdered Percy: a bunny that, in the picture you can see on the internet with the naked young, looks identical to my pet, who is now an adult rabbit.

They tried to shave Percy, set her alight, tried to drown her and then threw her still alive from the window. The human monsters, all white, even filmed with a cell what they did: a video that the owner of the bunny (also white) could not see when the police arrested the perpetrators; just a still picture to identify the missing pet. The punishment for this crime was insignificant in today’s Britain. I would have ordered torture—exactly what they did to the rabbit—and then throwing them out the window to let them die in agony lying on the ground (tit for tat). In fact, if by some miracle of fate an extraterrestrial force had empowered me like a Karellen on my recent trip to the UK, I would have done it already.

We must remember that, had the Anglo-Saxon demons allowed Germany an empire from the Atlantic to the Urals, in areas under the Nazi flag the torment animals would have slowed considerably. Personally, I consider Hermann Göring my patron saint: and he should also be the patron for those who yearn for a world free of such abuses of human power. Never forget the caricature of 1933 on how freed animals—no more vivisection! no more animal testing!—salute their savior Hermann.


Unlike my beloved Nazis, in both DW and my blog in English I talked about what the non-Nazis are capable to do with defenseless animals. I mentioned fur factories in China where some mammals are skinned alive; farms in Mexico where they hang the rabbits from their ears to death, something that has also happened in some Australian farms. This and what they did to Percy pierced my soul. Her photo in The Mirror shows her in a posture of quiet confidence before the humans who would torture her: identical image to the positions of how my own bunny—so used like Percy to benign owners—peacefully relaxes in human presence. The betrayal of the universe that Percy must have experienced facing the change from human angels to human devils is such that I have dedicated this book to her memory.

Although what those evil humans in Durham did was condemned by other English, so-called normal people do not stay behind. Human beings whom I consider exterminable are capable of pouring concentrated solutions for days in laboratory rabbits, and to prevent they close their eyes they fasten their lids with tongs! (How many women are unaware that their cosmetics are experimented such way…) This happens now with the blessing of society precisely because World War II was won by the wicked. Few know that in 1944-1947 the Soviets, Jews and Americans practiced a holocaust of Germans, the “Hellstorm” preventing inter alia that the benign policies of Hermann, who had saved our cousins in the brief historical window represented by the Third Reich, were implemented in the post-war West.

The philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn used the optical illusion of the duck-rabbit to show how a “paradigm shift” makes you see the same information in a completely different way. If westerners had not passed through a brainwashing process, instead of seeing a duck (the Nazis were evil) they would see a rabbit (they were actually good!). I noticed this in 1992 when studying the Faces of Bélmez in a small village of Andalusia. I started believing that the faces of the kitchen of María Gómez Cámara were a paranormal phenomenon until some day, looking at the face called La Pelona, I made a change in my inner subjectivity. I experienced the feeling that the broad strokes of the face were the work of human hand, shattering the parapsychological research upon which I had placed my hopes. Well ahead the book I will tell the details of that misadventure in Spain; suffice it to say that the paradigm shift comes from the inner will. Following the example of Kuhn, the volitional faculty of my mind stopped seeing a bird of the family Anatidae and discovered an Oryctolagus cuniculus.


The same can happen in our inner eye while revaluating Christian and neo-Christian values to their National Socialist antithesis (cf. FR and DW). Why do white nationalists, most of whom are Christian theists and neo-Christian atheists and both scared of The Turner Diaries are dissociated psychologically? Because, unlike William Pierce, with their stupid love for the modified apes they condemn other animals to a torture for millennia—while potentially the Aryans, who are going extinct, are capable of becoming Görings. For a truly integrated individual it becomes a no-brainer that what is moral is putting a screeching halt to the sadism towards our cousins, and the only way to do that is by dispatching the human devils. A change from love to hatred for sinful mankind—great hatred I mean: a hatred à la Yahweh from the mouth of Jeremiah—represents a paradigm shift. Does the quote from the novel Childhood’s End by Arthur Clarke I included in the fifth and final book in HS is recalled? In that novel humans are metamorphosed into a higher being. I quote again one of these passages, but remember that in the novel Karellen was the leader of the aliens who visited Earth: physically indistinguishable from the Christian iconography of devils.

“If you want a single proof of the essential—how shall I put it—benevolence of the Overlords, think of that cruelty-to-animals order which they made within a month of their arrival. If I had had any doubts about Karellen before, that banished them—even though that order has caused me more trouble than anything else he’s ever done!

That was scarcely an exaggeration, Stormgren thought. The whole incident had been an extraordinary one, the first revelation of the Overlords’ hatred of cruelty. That, and their passion for justice and order, seemed to be the dominant emotions in their lives—as far as one could judge them by their actions.

And it was the only time Karellen had shown anger, or at least the appearance of anger. “You may kill one another if you wish,” the message had gone, “and that is a matter between you and your own laws. But if you slay, except for food or in self-defense, the beasts that share your world with you—then you may be answerable to me.”

No one knew how comprehensive this ban was supposed to be, or what Karellen would do to enforce it. They had not long to wait.

The Plaza de Toros was full when the matadors and their attendants began their processional entry. Everything seemed normal; the brilliant sunlight blazed harshly on the traditional costumes, the great crowd greeted its favorites as it had a hundred times before. Yet here and there faces were turned anxiously towards the sky, to the aloof silver shape fifty kilometers above Madrid.

Then the picadors had taken up their places and the bull had come snorting out into the arena. The skinny horses, nostrils wide with terror, had wheeled in the sunlight and their riders forced them to meet their enemy. The first lance flashed—made contact—and at that moment came a sound that had never been heard on earth before.

It was the sound of ten thousand people screaming with the pain of the same wound—ten thousand people who, when they had recovered from the shock, found themselves completely unharmed. But that was the end of that bullfight, and indeed of all bullfighting, for the news spread rapidly.

Before I woke to the real world and stop demonizing the Third Reich, Childhood’s End was my favorite book. Now I see the devil Karellen, as painted by Clarke, was too magnanimous to humans. The sole fact that there are seedy slaughterhouses in the Spanish-speaking world warrants more drastic steps than that character’s actions.

In Mexico compartments for calves are so narrow that they cannot even turn around in the cage. When growing up farmers cut horns, mark with iron and castrate without anesthesia. On trucks en route to the Mexican slaughterhouses the animals sometimes travel more than a day without food or drink; they arrive hungry, thirsty and dizzy to Hell. The first thing the poor animals see in the slaughterhouse is a gruesome spectacle: pools of blood and skinned or dismembered carcasses of other cows; severed heads on the floor… They enter the first circles of hell in a state of panic. Arriving at the seventh the blow the killers give on the cow’s head does not always kill it. Sometimes this noble animal is injured, in shock and with the deepest pain wondering with no language why the demons of hell do you what they do. Mexicans are so exterminable that they usually put live pigs into an enormous pool of boiling water so that the Gehenna’s pain by fire makes the animal drop off its hairs. (In Mexico people are fond of eating pork rind—incidentally, a treat for my father—and they don’t like seeing hairs on it.)

The Spaniards are not left far behind. They prepare the bull in a bullfight to make it less dangerous by cutting the horns’ tips, smearing petroleum jelly on its eyes to blur the vision and an irritant solution onto the legs so that the animal will be always moving around the bull ring. (Before, they would have stuck a needle into the genitals to stunt their growth.) They put tow into its nose for making it harder to breathe; they give strong laxatives before the fight, and beat its loins and kidneys with sacks before it faces the matador. (And let us not mention what can be seen in the Spanish and Latin American television after the bull enters the arena.)

Only now it may be glimpsed the power of my unconscious during the dream in Madrid. If from the unconscious we take it not only to consciousness but to the super-consciousness it means that most humans should not exist. It is not enough that, according to polls, the majority of Spaniards today are uninterested in bullfighting. The mere fact that they and other people are involved in the chain of cruelty to animals—either using a product of feminine vanity experimented on the eyes of a bunny who was prevented from closing its eyelids, or gobbling the cutlet of a pig that had been submerged alive in boiling water—should be enough to arouse the exterminating hatred of the alien devil. Consider for example this passage from a commentary by one J. Marone, who in 2005 reviewed for Amazon Books Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the US Meat Industry:

Cows, pigs and chickens are taken through the slaughter house alive. Cows are often alive all the way through the line, this includes while they are getting their legs chopped off with cutters—imagine that… They [those who work there] do not stop the line for these inconveniences. The workers shove electric prods in their rectums and eyes—deep into the sockets occasionally pulling out the eye to get them moving to the slaughter line.

After reading this [the book] I will never eat another piece of meat again. It is not my decision to make any other living thing suffer. But I find it amazing that when you go to share this book, people don’t want to know. They would rather stay ignorant and that in itself has shocked me tremendously.

The italics from the last paragraph are mine, and express why it is not enough that humans claim ignorance, as almost every adult has heard what happens in the slaughterhouses. When recently in my preparations for writing this chapter I began to read what was happening in those places I promised myself, like Marone, not to put pieces of corpses of mammals or birds in my mouth again. And now that I write these lines I notice that, to be consistent, I must also leave the dairy. From now on I will not be complicit of what dairy cows suffer in Mexican farms, which will eventually be killed in such spine-chilling way anyway. (I’ll even quit eating eggs. In this country of exterminable Neanderthals they put five chickens in a cage of less than one square meter where they live a year or more with electric lights to prevent normal sleeping hours and having them laying eggs like crazy. No wonder that a visitor to these coops called those places “gallinaceous madhouses.”)

I do not believe in the postmortem survival of the soul in the Christian or Buddhist sense. But clearly, Anatole France was right to say that, until you’ve stopped eating animal flesh (or derivatives of tormented animals I would say), a part of your soul remains unawakened. The thought of France takes us back to the points made in the fourth book of HS, where the psychogenic evolution of man is exposed. If regarding childrearing the Spaniards had taken a psychogenic quantum leap compared to Amerindians who still ate flesh of their children, a new leap means developing, in our times, empathy for our cousins in the animal kingdom.

Unlike Hitler and other vegetarians of the Nazi party, most Aryans have not gone through that leap. Just look at the pictures of mammals in laboratory experiments performed throughout North America and Europe and see that mankind is truly a damned species. I won’t incur into the rudeness of adding those pictures in this chapter: that is a task I leave to my readers. What I’m getting at is that the development of empathy has not even reached white nationalism or neo-Nazism understood in the American way. For example, on page 731 of Freedom’s Sons, the last novel in the saga of Harold Covington about the creation of a white nation northwest of North America, the author gives as ignoble the prohibition of eating beef, and on page 884 he puts as noble the practice of a child to go out hunting rabbits not to eat them, but for pleasure.

A parenthesis: When I talk about the extermination of the Neanderthals, in which I include virtually all non-whites and a good part of whites, it is not that I have forgotten the Jews. By now it should be obvious that those who continue cruel Mosaic practices in their treatment of animals to be eaten (in addition to the Talmudic injunction to exterminate the best of the goyim) are shown at the top of my blacklist. So, when I talk to exterminate the Neanderthalesque whites in the future, it is perfectly understood that cities like Jerusalem or Tel Aviv had already been ethnically cleansed and renamed as Himmler City or Eichmann City.

Such exterminating fantasies would not seem unhealthy if we do a thought experiment. In the article that gave the title to DW I quoted a nonfiction book by Arthur Clarke in which he spoke of the “Judgment from the Stars” the earthlings could experience. If we imagine that in real life someone like a Karellen visited our planet, what is the first thing he would see from his distant ships of silver, far above the human swarms? Urban sprawl. Environmentally destructive industries and bringing the cameras closer, abject human misery and unimaginable suffering of other species that share the planet with us. If, as in Clarke’s novel, the visitor also possessed machines to study the past of the species he would also perceive, along the hell that the naked apes put their cousins in, that throughout history and prehistory these apes had behaved hideously with their own children. It is worthwhile summarizing the statistics of the fourth book in HS.

With their machines to literally see the human past this hypothetical extraterrestrial would be taken aghast at the extent of infanticide: from fifteen to fifty percent of the total number of births in prehistoric times. Already in historical times, he would see thousands of young children slaughtered ritually, offered to the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. He would see the sacrifice of the infants of the Pelasgians; of the Syrians to Jupiter and Juno and more infant offerings at Gezer and Egypt in the centuries the earthlings call 10th-8th before Christ. Not to mention what the visitor would see with his machines when focusing them on the ancient Semites of Carthage, where burning children alive ordained by their own parents reached its infamous zenith. Something similar our visitor could see about other Phoenicians, Canaanites, Moabites, Sepharvites and the ancient Hebrews: who in their origins offered their eldest son as a sacrifice to their god(s). With their magic to see our past, the alien visitor would learn that it was not until the 4th century of the Gregorian calendar that Valentinian decreed that families must raise all their children, although both the exposure as the abandonment of infants continued in Europe until a council took action against the custom of killing one’s own kids.

Far worse things would our visitor see in the lands inhabited by non-whites: thousands of babies, mostly female, abandoned in the streets of ancient China; and how those not abandoned were put to death in cold water. He would see that in feudal Japan they suffocated the baby with wet paper covering her nose and mouth; how infanticide was systematic in the feudal Rajputs in India, sometimes throwing their children alive to the crocodiles; and how in pre-Islamic Arabia they buried alive a number of newborn females.

With his technology based on unimaginable principles the visitor would also see that the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa killed their children much more often than did other races: in Årebo, the Nama Hottentots, the inhabitants of the Lake Victoria Nyanza, the Tswana, the Ilso, the people of the bush, the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert, the Kikuyu (the most populous group in what is now Kenya), the Tswana, the Vadshagga, the Ibo village in Nigeria where the neonate was also buried alive or the Kuni, where every mother had killed at least one of their children. He would even see that child sacrifice was practiced in Zimbabwe as recently as the beginnings of the century the earthlings denominate 20th century. He would also see truly massive infanticides among the natives of the countless islands of Oceania, and in New Guinea, and even more among the extremely primitive aborigines of Australia, Tasmania and Polynesia. He would learn that in American tribes infanticide continued in times the practice had been abandoned in Europe, and also learn about the cannibalism among the Dene Amerindians and those of the Mackenzie Mountains; and that in the region now known as South Texas the Mariame practiced female infanticide on a large scale. He would see the same not only among the Central and South American tribes, but in the civilizations before the Spanish conquest where ritual slaughter of women and children suggests that they did it out of pure sadism. The hypothetical Karellen would see what I also mentioned in HS with reliable academic references: that some of these women and children were flayed on the face, or suffered eye mutilation before being executed. Finally, the visitor would see that, after the Conquest, the cruelty of the Mesoamerican and the Incan was prohibited by the Spanish only to be transferred to animals, which explains the cruelty in the slaughterhouses and farms at a time when our visitor does not have to use his devices to open the Complete Book of History and Prehistory of the species he studies.

It is clear where I want to go. If it is legitimate for this hypothetical alien to remove from the face of the Earth a newly-arrived species whose haughtiness blinds them from their evil, how can it be pathological that one of the terrestrials reaches the same conclusion? Just because, unlike the visitor, he does not have technological power?

The sad truth is that infanticide and human cruelty have not been atoned inwardly, only transferred onto our cousins.

In DW I spoke of the Star-Child. An eschatology from above would be a son of man returning on the clouds with great power and glory to judge mankind, or, in the new version of the myth, a David Bowman in a sphere of light approaching the Earth as in Kubrick’s film. But since I’m skeptical of both personal deities and intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way, I could conceive, rather than an eschatology “from above” an eschatology “from below.” I refer to the intra-psychic evolution of a human being while developing an infinitely more intense empathy of what the bulk of modified apes (whom I call Neanderthals) have developed.

The rhetoric currently in use among the protectors of children and animals in the West is only a first stammering of what we have in mind. Unlike the hypothetical Star-Child, the most fanatical “animal rights” activists whom I have personally met don’t even dare to see that, besides humans, other species must be removed from the Earth and its oceans. A Star-Child with mile-high empathy and powers would not tolerate, for example, the torture of several hours that a pack of killer whales inflict a whale calf while killing it to rip off its tongue. And pictures of hyenas eating a little elephant alive—there are video recordings of how a member of the pack rips the trunk of the alive elephant—speak for themselves and do not need lucubration on how we would proceed.

Animal-on-animal cruelty aside, the hatred that the metamorphosed human also feels for other modified apes around him can be glimpsed in the following anecdote. Before I went to England with plans to emigrate, I left my pet in the cursed house that, as we saw in the fifth book of HS, is virtually on Tlalpan Viaduct: a freeway that goes on the road to Cuernavaca where trucks and cars constantly pass, even well after midnight. Seeing my bunny in a cultivated garden that is paradise for him, but surrounded by such noise, especially at night, I imagined—with powers à la Bowman—eliminating all and every one of the Mexicans who drive that stretch of the road to avoid the background roar for my bunny. Such fantasy would not seem outlandish if, on a new scale of values, we value the modified apes negatively; and noble species of animals including lagomorph mammals, positively regardless of the relative size of their brains or sophistication of their culture.

It does not matter that to cleanse Tlalpan Viaduct from humans it requires eliminating millions of Mexicans, as there are millions who take that road. The interests of a single animal trump the interests of millions of humans, insofar as the modified apes are valued on the negative side of our scale. With the exception of a few nymphs as beautiful as Catalina who reside here, no inhabitant of this city is worth it—of male Criollos for example, I know exactly no one with honor or true nobility of soul. The sum of millions of modified apes in this city that Farnham O’Reilly declared that needs to be razed and transformed into a memorial atonement park dedicated to Nature does not give a positive for the mere fact that they are millions. It gives a large negative. Conversely, a single modified dinosaur (contemporary bird) or a lagomorph, as much as modest and discreet its life may be, is a small positive. The arithmetic with which the Star-Child judges the species on Earth, including Homo sapiens, has little to do with the standards about the “positive” and “negative” for humans.

A world of cultivated forests and Percys never again to be tortured by monstrous whites or of any other skin color is what shall inherit the Earth. It cannot be more significant that my most important works, Hojas Susurrantes and this one I am starting, Extermination, are dedicated to non-humans: a tree and a bunny.

Maxfield_Parrish_HilltopIn the final chapter of Childhood’s End the metamorphosed children eliminated all animal and plant life, except their own. I do not think we need to go that far. In the laws of the universe there is an Aristotelian golden mean between the apocalyptic children of the end and the law of the jungle that currently impose the naked apes. The mean is turning the world into an Elysian island. Young Clarke at twenty-nine beautifully described that place with his prose: the city of Lys in his first novella, Against the Fall of Night where, besides some animals, an evolved form of human being is allowed—a human where empathy is imposed and the original sin is gone. But let us go down the heights of genuine science fiction for a moment and return to the real world.

The monastic orders wrought by the Spanish crown alongside the soldiery, including some mendicant orders that protected the natives, did not represent a genuine empathy. The 16th century Spain was Quixote; and these orders represented a counterproductive version of empathy or compassion for those who suffer. What the Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians and eventually the Jesuits did in the Americas was quixotic folly: to conceive the naturals as souls to be saved.

In Tasmania and the Caribbean islands the Europeans would exterminate the natives but not having exterminated them in the American continent led to, over the Colonial period, the natives’ displacement of their sadism onto both their offspring (as we saw in HS) as the animals. If instead of catechizing they would have cornered the natives, as Americans would do in this continent, the New Spaniard psychoclass in the Americas would have reflected the Iberian psychoclass undyed of Mesoamerican sadism. The social engineering of the Counter-Reformation was the big culprit for the gestation of a mesticized cruelty between Spanish bullfighting and Amerindian sacrificial passion in this huge part of the continent.

The next chapter describes the stubborn infatuation of my father for the Dominican monk who protected Amerindians the most and originated, with his lamentations, the Black Legend against Spain. At the moment we can only say that the basis of my feelings towards humanity are already in these pages albeit very, very lightly sketched. HS was like the tunnel Dave suddenly found himself in: a vortex of colored lights where, terrified, he traveled at great speed across vast distances in space, viewing bizarre cosmological phenomena and strange landscapes of unusual colors. But HS ends before the final metamorphosis, before the new Odysseus discovers himself as middle aged in a bedroom designed in Louis XVI style; seeing progressively later versions of himself and, finally, as a very old man lying on a bed.

The rest of this book will explain how, due to the evilness in my family and society—Evil with capital E—, with no need of extraterrestrial agency as a black monolith at the foot of a bed for a centenarian elder dying in that bedroom, I suffered an inner metamorphosis and now come back to hate humanity so much as the Star-Child hated it.

Deal with it!

Further to my previous post. Andrew Anglin has now steamrolled a cockroach in the “right whinge” of white nationalism, a racialist liberal who cannot understand that anti-Nazi is simply a codeword for anti-white (see also Alex Linder’s input here). Below, the last section of Anglin’s overkilling piece. Pay special attention to the paragraph where he states that National Socialism was the pinnacle of European civilization.


The sheer idiocy of pro-white liberalism

The last point in the entire debate is that no matter what you do, if you are attempting to restore traditional European society, you are going to look and act basically exactly like Nazis. Because NS was the post-industrial revolution embodiment of traditional Europeanism. It was scientifically formulated as such.

What happens is that the further you try to get away from the label of “Nazi,” the more you necessarily have to compromise, because in fleeing the label, you abandon stances and doctrines with similarities to those of the NSDAP, and so are forced to abandon key aspects of a nationalist platform.

Basically, what the Right Whinge are trying to do is combine modern liberalism with a whites-only society. And though I want something very much more extreme than that, if I thought it was possible to achieve that, I might put aside my agenda and embrace it. After all, a whites-only society, whether based on liberal principles or not, would at least give us more radical folks the option of existing how we wish to exist, free from harassment by the system.

We would also end up voting our way into power anyway through the liberal democracy system that the pro-White liberals would doubtlessly leave in place, as conservatives are still the majority in America if you get rid of the Jews and non-Whites, at which point we could form a one-party system and end the vote.

However, this plan for a liberal White revolution can’t possibly work. Even if you could manage to combine liberal thought with the concept of a Whites-only society (and you couldn’t, as is evidenced by Johnson’s attempts to do so, which contain endless inconsistencies and outright contradictions—one of the most blatant being complaining about the White birthrate while celebrating homosexuality) it would be incapable of achieving victory over the present system, largely due to the fact that liberals are weak and gutless cowards, as evidenced by Liddell and others continually speaking out against “hate” and defaming anyone who ever accomplished anything that mattered.

As I have said, they are also fundamentally incapable of rallying the masses.

What rallied the masses in the sixties, when liberalism began its conquest of the West, was seduction. They offered free sex, drugs and a general lack of any personal responsibility. Plus a lot of really good music. But the people now have all of these things. So what would you then rally them behind? Just “we need rid of these foreigners and Blacks, so we can have peace”?

It cannot work. Yes, of course people are fed up with foreigners and Blacks, but that idea alone cannot maintain a new Zeitgeist. It cannot stir the youth to revolution. What can stir the youth to revolution is a critique of the entire system of the Jews, and the way it has affected all of us on a personal level.

The fact that we can see all of these people invading our countries and feeding off of us like buzzards on a still breathing man is indeed powerfully upsetting, but at this point those who are inspired by liberal thought—who are definitively a part of a very specific socio-economic class—can still avoid them, for the most part, and it doesn’t much matter if in thirty years they are the majority, because who cares what happens in thirty years? Certainly childless middle class White liberals do not.

However, if we look at the entirety of the effects of Jew liberalism on us, the levels of alienation we’ve suffered in our individual lives, the way our families have been torn apart, the way we have been undermined by the fairer sex which was created by God to be our faithful companion, the way our masculinity has been stripped from us, the way our identity and sense of belonging has been crushed into powder and swept out into the sea—then we are left with material fit for Total Revolution.

We are vocalizing an idea which appeals to the masses, a full-on rebellion against modernity. Hitler is the ultimate symbol of that, because Hitler is Old Europe, and Old Europe is what our very bones are calling out for. National Socialism was the pinnacle of European civilization. In order to progress forward, we must first return to that point.

This is the only plan which can possibly work. Thus we should relish in extremism, not avoid it. It is all or nothing. There is no halfway. Halfway is impossible. The entire Jewish system must be removed.

Unlike Johnson, I won’t attack “mainstreamers” as useless, as I believe they ultimately move things in the right direction, even though they don’t go the whole way.

However, in the end, the only way we are going to fix society is through hardline National Socialism.

The Jew system doesn’t accept apologies for being White and I wouldn’t be willing to offer one anyway.

I am White.

I am a National Socialist.

And I am not sorry.

Deal with it.

The Daily Stormer


Andrew Anglin’s blogsite, The Daily Stormer, which acknowledges the benign force of National Socialism, is becoming more popular among highly red-pilled whites than the old, much milder approach of racialists—fantastically more popular in fact.

See Anglin’s excellent rebuttals of Colin Liddell & Greg Johnson’s effete approaches in Anglin’s own site (e.g., here), or Alex Linder’s recent take on exactly the same subject (here).

Finally it looks like National Socialism is starting to become un-demonized among those whites who have really awoken. This promises a Great Awakening in the future for the whole West.

Sieg Heil!

Published in: on October 12, 2014 at 7:35 pm  Comments (13)  

Degenerate “nationalists”

by Roger

Let it be declared that National Socialism, so uniquely responsive to harmony and beauty, health and strength, has absolutely no room for “rock”, that degenerate din of the African jungle to which the above hooligans [skinheads], and also others pretending to be National Socialists, are addicted, and which, we would have them know, Hitler would most certainly have prohibited. This is something that skinheads—if they are to elevate themselves from this category, have got to learn.

—Colin Jordan, “National Socialism:
Vanguard of the Future”, pp. 26-27,
Historical Review Press, 2011

I don’t know much about Génération Identitaire (their alleged British branch does not exist outside of Facebook, to my knowledge, and is inactive even there), but there is a popular current in continental Europe nowadays for “social-nationalism”, which is manifested through various different fronts: National-Anarchism, Autonomous Nationalism, and so forth. I find it repulsive aesthetically and politcially. The best example might be CasaPound in Italy, whose behaviour seems like an ostensibly right-wing mirror of the 1968 New Left. They live as squatters in unoccupied properties, they have their own rock band, and they organise meetings to promote extremely pretentious “beyond left and right” nonsense in which enemies like Che Guevara are revised as heroic national liberators.

Worst yet are the Autonomous Nationalists, who record “NS Hip-Hop” and idolise the likes of Otto Strasser, a renowned traitor who spent the large part of his life attacking Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich from outside (he was essentially the Trotsky of National Socialism). They self-consciously dress themselves like anarchists and they use anti-fascist symbols, like a bunch of inverted Situationists.

This must be heard to be believed: (YouTube link) .

H youth1How can a nation go from producing marches like Preußens Gloria and Volk ans Gewehr to this? I’ll tell you how: the imposition of foreign anti-values by the 1945 Allied occupiation (which Strasser, the hero of countless social-nationalists, fully supported; in fact, he testified against Germans at the Nuremberg show trials). Even the German federal constitution was written by the occupiers, so naturally their culture ended up getting debased by what Solzhenitsyn referred to in 1994 as “liquid manure from the West”, which was flooding into Russia after the fall of Soviet Socialism. We can and should hate all Bolsheviks, but it is impossible to deny that the Soviet Union’s protectionist attitude towards culture managed to prevent Beatlemania from taking off in most of Eastern Europe.

The above quotation by Colin Jordan is taken from an essay entitled “The Enemy Within”, which is largely a critique of Strasserism. The fact that attacked the skinhead rock fans in the same same essay shows how little things have changed since he wrote that. Here is another one from the same book of essays, again against rock music and its worshippers:

This is what we are up against! The bulk of our younger generation clad appropriately in the slovenly uniform of the creed of slovenliness, debauching their minds in an ecstasy of adoration of a chaos of cacophony and the vile creatures of the night purveying it. This represents democracy’s maturity, and that maturity is the prelude to communism. (pp. 108-109)

I also enjoy Revilo P. Oliver’s definition of rock music: “the cacophonous din that has replaced music in degenerate circles”.

H.C. Strache, the leader of the FPÖ, has released several videos of himself rapping. It is a disgrace. I want to like that party, seeing as it has the support of 42% of Austrians in the 18-30 age group, but it is hard to get enthused when its most senior figure is happy to make such a fool of himself in public. Perhaps it can only garner the support of that 42% by being degenerate.

Arthur de Gobineau’s

Essai Sur L’Inégalité des Races Humaines

“We (Wagner and Cosima) have done nothing but talk about you and your Essay since noon, when my husband came to tell me of the pleasure and interest he has found in reading chapter thirteen, which has absorbed him since he began it. Parsifal has been cornered into reading your books!! I am not able to express how much we love and admire this masterpiece…”

Letter of Cosima to Gobineau of March 27, 1881


The Essai Sur L’Inégalité des Races Humaines (Essay on the Inequality of Human Races), of which only the first volume is available in English, is a book published in 1853 and 1855 by the French philosopher Joseph Arthur de Gobineau. It is considered the initial work of racialist philosophy. Below I reproduce an abridged translation of the introduction by Adriano Romualdi.

There are books that act on the reality of many of the political events and, out of the narrow circle of the discussion, become a powerful idea, myth and blood supplying historical processes. The most typical is undoubtedly Marx’s Capital, a historical-economic study that has become religious dogma, battle gun and gospel. To these books belongs the Essay on the Inequality of Human Races of Count Gobineau, ignored during the time the author lived but released in Germany after his death.

Arthur de Gobineau was born in Ville d’Avray in 1816 to a family of ancient Norman origin. Shortly before his death, in his Histoire d’Ottar Jara he would relive the events of the Viking conqueror that reached the coast of France, giving rise to his family. Gobineau’s father was a captain in the Royal Guard of Charles X. After the revolution of 1830 he departed to live in Britain while the son went to study in Switzerland. There Gobineau learned German and peered into the vast prospects opened by Germanic philology in those years. Since Friedrich Schlegel in his Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Inder taught affinity between European languages and Sanskrit he assumed an Aryan migration from Asia to Europe. In 1816, Bopp, with his Greek grammar, compared Sanskrit, Persian, Greek, Latin and founded Indo-European philology. Meanwhile, the Brothers Grimm rediscovered Edda and Germanic poetry, reviving the old heroism and primordial mythology while Kart O. Müller found in the Dorians (Die Dorier, 1824) the Nordic soul of ancient Greece. Thus Gobineau was familiar from his adolescence with a world that European culture was slowly assimilating.

In 1834 Gobineau went to Paris. He was not rich and tried to steer through as a writer and journalist. Of his literary works, many pages of Le Prisionnier Chancheux, Ternote, Mademoiselle Irnois, Les Aventures de Nicolas Belavoir and E’Abbaye of Thyphanes have withstood the erosion of time.

An article in the Revue de deux Mondes put him in touch with Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous author of Democracy in America, also of old Norman lineage. This friendship joined them through a lifetime despite their strong differences: Tocqueville, the aristocrat, resigned with melancholy by accepting democracy as a reality of the modern world while Gobineau, another aristocrat, rebelled and identified civilization with the work of a master race.

Tocqueville was appointed Foreign Minister and called his friend as his chief of staff. On the eve of the Napoleonic coup Tocqueville resigned but Gobineau put on a brave face to the Caesarism. He entered diplomacy and was the first secretary to take the delegation of Bern. It was in Berne where he wrote the Essai Sur L’Inégalité des Races Humaines. The first two volumes appeared in 1853, and more in 1855.

The book incorporates the movements of the great discovery of the Indo-European unity, i.e., a large extended Aryan family from Iceland to India. The Latin word pater, the Gothic fadar, the Greek patér and the Sanskrit derivations are revealed as originating from a single word. But if there has been a primary language of which several languages have branched, there must be a major lineage that existed, moving from its original home, and spread this language in the vast space between Scandinavia and the Ganges. It was the people that named themselves Aryans, a term with which the rulers are referred to themselves as opposed to the natives of the conquered lands (compare the Persian and the Sanskrit for arya = noble, pure; the Greek àristos = best , the Latin herus = owner, the soldierly Germanic Ehre = honor).

This is where Gobineau’s reasoning is channeled, mobilizing for his thesis ancient Indian texts revealing these prehistoric Aryans—tall, blond, with blue eyes—piercing into India, Persia, Greece, and Italy to make the great ancient civilizations flourish. Every civilization comes from an Aryan conquest, from the organization imposed by an elite of Nordic lords over a mass population.

Comparing each of the three great racial families the superiority of the Aryan appears to us evident. “If his [the black man’s] mental faculties are dull or even non-existent”—writes Gobineau—“he often has an intensity of desire, and so of will, which may be called terrible. Consequently, the black race is an intensely sensual, emotional radically race, but lacks of will and clarity of the organizer.” The yellow race stands before the black but it differs from the true creative will. Here we also have a race of second order, a kind infinitely less vulgar than the black but that lacks audacity, toughness and that sharp, heroic intelligence expressed in the gracile Aryan face. Civilization is thus a legacy of blood and is lost with the melting pot of blood. This is the explanation that Gobineau offers us about the tragedy of world history.

Gobineau’s key concept is degeneration, in the proper sense of the word, which is expressed in the growing apart from one’s own original type (the Germans would speak of ­­Entnordung or denordization). Ancient peoples have disappeared because they have lost their Nordic integrity, and this can occur to modern man as well. “If the empire of Darius had, at the battle of Arbela, been able to fill its ranks with Persians, that is to say with real Aryans; if the Romans of the later Empire had had a Senate and an army of the same stock as that which existed at the time of the Fabii, their dominion would never have come to an end.”

The fate that overwhelmed ancient cultures also threatens us. The democratization of Europe, which began with the French Revolution, represents the revolt of the servile masses with their hedonistic and pacifist values against the heroic ideals of Nordic aristocracies of Germanic origin. Equality, that for a time was just a myth, threatens to become reality in the infernal cauldron where the superior mixes with the inferior and what is noble is bogged down into the ignoble.

If today the Essai Sur L’Inégalité des Races Humaines appears aged in many features, it retains a substantial validity. Gobineau has the great merit of having first addressed the problem of the crisis of civilization in general and the West in particular. In a century stunned by the commoner myth of progress, he dared to proclaim the fatal decline of every culture and the senile and crepuscular nature of the citizens of a rationalist civilization. Without Gobineau’s work, without the serious, solemn chiming bumps in the prelude of his Essai, all of modern literature about crises by Spengler, Huizinga and Evola is unimaginable.

Gobineau’s great work on the inequality of the races was completed, but the French culture did not take notice. Tocqueville tried to comfort Gobineau prophesying that his book would be introduced into France from Germany.

Gobineau died suddenly in Turin in October 1882. Nobody seemed to notice his disappearance. It was the Germans who valorized him. Wagner opened its columns of the Bayreuther Blätter; Hans von Wolzogen, Ludwig Schemann and Houston Stewart Chamberlain announced his work. It was Ludwig Schemann who founded the cult of Gobineau by instituting an archive near the University of Strasbourg, then in Germany. In 1896 Schemann founded the Gobineau-Vereinigung, which would spread Gobineauism throughout Germany. In 1914 Schemann had an influential network of friends and protectors and the Kaiser himself subsidized it.

On the trail of the work of Gobineau, racialism was born: Vacher de Lapouge, Penka, Pösche, Wilser, Woltmann, H. S. Chamberlain and after the war Rosenberg, Hans Günther and Clauss retook Gobineaunian intuitions and amplified them with a vast doctrinal body. In 1933 National Socialism, assuming power in Germany, officially recognized the ideology of race. Thus what Wittgenstein had prophesied about Gobineau was fulfilled: “You say you are a man of the past, but in reality you are a man of the future.”

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).

Führer anniversary


Rockwell’s numinous call vs. white nationalism

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

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

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

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

Cited in “Rockwell: A National Socialist Life.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 271 other followers