On ethnonationalism

by Edwin

Johann_Heinrich_Wilhelm_Tischbein

Editor’s note: Originally posted on February 24, 2016, I am relocating this post to this day. Edwin’s piece, an original for The West’s Darkest Hour, hits the nail about what is wrong with today’s Weltanschauung even among racialists circles.


The ethno-nationalist question needs to be handled with a certain degree of intricacy and delicacy.

Goethe expresses the ideal of ethnos by the phrase: “Outwardly limited; inwardly limitless.” Only by limiting myself within a specific local history, people, language and geographic boundary is it possible to develop an authentic Personality. Only by renouncing political involvement and accepting traditional authority (aristocracy) can I attain an inner freedom. Only from the organic development of a distinct nation held together by blood and soil can I acquire culture and produce works of art (symbols) that transcend earthly boundaries. This notion of individuation as a long heroic journey only for a few is entirely foreign to the mindset of the White American.

There is no question that White Nationalism in all its various incarnations has been an abysmal failure, and that ethno-nationalism, within the European context, is presently the only source of public resistance to the ongoing program of dissolution and displacement implemented by the globalists. It seems inconceivable at the present moment that the salvation of Aryan man will not involve using the hidden reservoirs of resentment brought to the surface by ethno-nationalist parties, if only for tactical reasons. The European masses at present seem incapable of rising above petty politics to unite under a common banner. Also, the hate crime legislations currently existing in Europe make more radical forms of resistance almost impossible. Consequently, we can conceive of ethno-nationalism as merely a transitory political phenomenon; a temporary stop-gap supported with grave reservations until political conditions (the Plebs) are ripe for truly revolutionary politics.

Ethno-nationalism, considered strictly as a theory, posits a return to a more authentic, traditional way of life, a golden age in which society was structured vertically. There is a romantic element that captures the imagination at a sub-intellectual emotive level, promising a life of meaning beyond the material. The simple argument of allowing the right of self-determination for distinct ethnicities sounds sensible for those that live within the modern world.

But ethno-nationalism in practice poses a number of serious problems:

Taylor-and-JacksonSecessionists in America assume a priori that non-whites have a distinct separate ethnos and are capable of creating a viable nation state without the active intervention of whites. With few exceptions, racial “realists” believe that some sort of practical accommodation can be made with Blacks and other mud bloods; according to this fantasy, North America will eventually devolve into a dozen independent nations, divided along racial and linguistic lines. In this new political dispensation, Blacks are to be given their own slice of paradise under the sun, free to live among their own kind and to pursue their own destiny. We are told by self-anointed intellectuals like Spencer, McDonald, and Johnson, that racial separation will be likened to a friendly “divorce”; contra history, population transfers will be “humane” and “peaceful,” with no shedding of innocent blood. Never mind the fact that this new Black Zion will be a grotesque farrago of Western and African culture, a pantomime of political theater, merely resembling the outward form of a state. Never mind the fact that blacks lack the ability to build a modern infrastructure and will face starvation. But no! Our intellectuals tell us that we must not believe our eyes (Africa, Haiti, Detroit); facts, in this one instance, do not matter. We have dispensed with Christian theology but must still believe in miracles!

Ethno-nationalism, being a by-product of modernity, always panders to the lowest common denominator. Every single ethno-nationalist party in Europe adopts a horizontal understanding of power, claiming to represent the true “will of the people” by defending mass democracy. No present elected leader offers a higher ideal or unifying principle. Economics and base materialism rule every policy decision. Every national history is largely a sad tale of petty victimhood, as though presenting a nation as a perpetual innocent “victim” that has undergone enormous suffering somehow ennobles and valorizes its right to exist; as though presenting the nation as a total weakling can be a source of strength and unity. And even if such a leader were to emerge, a leader who does not prostitute himself by promising to satisfy every material want, a leader who demands harsh discipline and allows for no excuses, the masses would not follow him. Europe has reached such a state of total degradation that the Finn, Kai Murros, finds it necessary to adopt the style of a Maoist Dialectician (!), if only to dress his revolutionary nationalism under a “respectable” analytical framework. Surveying the political landscape, the words of Nietzsche come to mind: “On the rulers I turned my back, when I saw what they now call ruling. To traffic and bargain for power—with the rabble!” The question must be asked: Can the debased White American with no ethnic identity support ethnic-nationalism? Or to be blunt: Can a White American value an object if no financial gain is possible?

Ethno-nationalists treat all European ethnicities like antiquarian idol-objects; they deserve preservation simply because of age, as if all were of equal value. Practically every single racial “realist” in Europe and America considers the question of biological differences and cultural achievements among indigenous European nationalities to be a social taboo. He is happy to point out the racial differences between Whites and Blacks yet becomes apoplectic if shortcomings among European populations are pointed out.

mudbloodsWhy should anyone care about preserving Polish or Croatian identity if their impact on world history is negligible? How does that advance the interests of Aryan man? What exactly does ethno-nationalism mean for a country (i.e. Greece, Portugal) that includes a significant number of mud bloods among its native population? The ethno-nationalists have no answer.

The proposition that any nation state, like the National Socialists of yesteryear, may expand its territory and impose a new order from above is treated as a modern day heresy by ethno-nationalists. Even the apologist David Irving is critical of Hitler and the National Socialists for refusing to grant self-determination for the Slavic people of the East. Lesser personalities such as Andrew Anglin and Carolyn Yeager are no better and find it necessary to rationalize the harsh treatment of the Slavs by the Germans.

Ethno-nationalism is not enough for all men. There are a few differentiated men who have an inner orientation and perspective totally foreign from everyone else. Such men recognize that their identities cannot be so easily circumscribed by the nation or tribe, and always feel a sense of alienation around other people. They recognize that they are part of a great chain of Being stretching back to pre-historic time. They see kindred racial spirits in the Aryans of Ancient India and Persia. They see themselves as spiritual heirs to the cultural patrimony left to us by the Greco-Roman world. Their horizons extend beyond the narrow confines of a nation state toward the idea of an Empire. They feel no moral qualms over outrageous territorial expansion. They look with outright disgust and nausea at what passes for “culture” in the modern era. These men have a naturally artistic temperament and are united by a common purpose: there must be a fanatical pursuit of beauty at whatever the cost.

Goethe, Nietzsche, H.S. Chamberlain, Oliver, Pierce, and a few others belong to this rare category of men. Contrast this with present day ethno-nationalists whose view of history does not stretch back even a hundred years—as though the idea of an Empire, of Rome or Greece never existed!

grecia mi patriaNational Socialism is the perfect fusion of German nationalism with the artistic temperament of Ancient Greece and with the martial valor of Rome. When asked for his reason for joining the National Socialist Party, the philosopher Martin Heidegger replied: “It was the one political movement in the twentieth century that took an essentially tragic view of life. That managed to bring the ethos of the Ancient Greeks 2500 years into the present.”

On Southern Nationalism

A corollary to “On exoteric white nationalism”

OD hat image

Some racialist Americans at Dixie are trying to distance themselves from the term “white nationalism.” However, Southerners are still stuck in the worldview of white nationalists, as shown in “An overly traveled road to extinction” by Hajo Liaucius: an essay that merited inclusion in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. (Those who don’t want to read Liaucius’ long essay, an original for my blog, may take a look at least to a section within that essay, which I renamed, “Was the Second Klan cuckservative?”) To Liaucius’ critique I would add that Southerners also suffer the mental disease of the West in general: Christian axiology. A couple of examples from one of the most popular Southern nationalists sites will explain our irreconcilable worldviews.

• Jack Ryan: “CINO [Catholic in Name Only] Pope Licking Black Muslim Migrant Boots!”Occidental Dissent, March 25, 2016

Reality check: Pope Francis is not a “Catholic in Name Only” leader of the Church. Quite the contrary. Ryan fails to see that what this Pope usually does simply follows undiluted gospel message, as shown in my 2014 Christmas post. (See also one of my recent comments at the main site about who used the term “racist” in a negative light for the first time: the Christians!)

• Hunter Wallace: “The Alt-Right and Abortion”Occidental Dissent, April 8, 2016

In the comments section of this article the exchange about abortion between the author and Greg Johnson shows how stuck Southern racialists are in ethnosuicidal morality. Just compare them with the eugenics program among the Spartans in an essay, originally written in Spanish, which also merited inclusion in The Fair Race. Compare them also with the Nazis, who certainly were not “pro-choice” but not “pro-life” either. They didn’t allow abortion for healthy Aryan German women, but demanded abortion upon women deemed un-Aryan (i.e. Jews, Gypsies, etc.) and German women with hereditary diseases.

Incidentally, Wallace didn’t even allow my own comment to pass. About the German philosopher who wanted to revaluate occidental values back to pre-Christian, Spartan-like morality, Wallace wrote: “BTW, Nietszche [sic] died childless from syphillis [sic] in an insane asylum, so he is hardly any guide to the family.” This is the typical ad hominem fallacy of course. Below, my comment that got censored in that thread:

He actually died at his sister’s house, and the biographers that I’ve read on Nietzsche, Curt Paul Janz and Werner Ross, considering the documents of the time don’t give any credit to the rumor of syphilis. As to Nietzsche’s views on the family see: here. The causes of Nietzsche’s solitude and incapability to form a family are explained in a lyrical essay: here.

Only if these racist Americans become deeply familiar with the history of Europe they’ll grow up. But that certainly won’t happen in this generation.

Published in: on April 10, 2016 at 4:13 pm  Comments (1)  

On harmless nationalists

by Edwin

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

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

White survival can only be properly understood as a war, without any rules of conduct. We are not dealing with an opponent that understands the concept of fair play. There will be no smooth transition of power.

Should it not be obvious by now that all pro-white groups active in America are harmless?

“Greatest American ever”

In his autobiography This Time The World, Commander George Lincoln Rockwell, who some consider “the greatest American that has ever lived,” describes his experiences dealing with pathetic conservatives in the 1950s.



By this time [in the mid-1950s], I had had plenty of opportunity to look over the activity of the “right-wing”—the conservatives—and had come to the conclusion, in my total ignorance of the real nature of the case, that all they needed to succeed was an organizational drive to get them “together,” with a businesslike plan. I had found that there were dozens and maybe hundreds of very rich men, like H. L. Hunt of Texas and Robert Welch of Boston, who felt much as I did and who, together, could pool enough money and resources to swamp the Marxist-Zionist Jews and left-wingers. There seemed to be plenty of talent and ability, and an actual majority of our people over on my side of politics, so that common sense seemed to force the conclusion that it was only a lack of determined effort to put this together which permitted the left-wing minority, sparked by the sub-minority of Jews, to keep winning victory after victory and thereby send America down the path to Marxist socialism and racial disintegration. […].

But I reckoned without any knowledge of the human content of the “right-wing.” From the millionaires to the scared little people who attend the endless, pitiful “conservative,” “100% American,” “old-fashioned,” “constitutional,” “states’ rights” meetings, I learned by bitter experience that the human material of the right-wing consists 90% of cowards, dopes, nuts, one-track minds, blabbermouths, boobs, incurable tightwads and—worst of all—hobbyists, people who have come to enjoy a perverted, masochistic pleasure in telling each other forever how we are all being raped by the “shhh—you know whos,” but who, under no condition, would risk their two cars, landscaped homes, or juicy jobs to DO something about it. Knowing nothing of this, however, and being full of my usual enthusiasm and drive, I paid for a series of radio spots before and after Fulton Lewis’ show, announcing a Washington meeting to organize the right-wing.

The response seemed to be gratifying. Hundreds of people called, and I arranged with one of them, Sam Jones, the correspondent of Bill Buckley’s National Review, to use his lovely old Virginia mansion in McLean for our first meeting.

Of the hundreds who called, only about fifty showed up at the meeting, including John Kasper and an Arab friend. I addressed the meeting in the best “conservative” style, lecturing “nicely” on the need “to get together” more than anything else, during which I received little flurries of polite applause. Ugh! How I shudder now to think of all that feeble, useless, stupid “niceness”—while Our Race and our whole world are being brutally destroyed!

From time to time somebody in the audience would ask “What about the Jews!” and there would be snickers and shifting around of feet, like grammar school kids when somebody mentions the word “sex.” Then I would scold this “bold” character for such a “disgusting display of prejudice,” making my righteous love of the “wonderful” Jews very clear, and even sharing knowing winks with some close friends in mutual appreciation of my “clever” deception.

The Jews would not have disturbed such a meeting for anything in the world. We, like a million other “conservatives,” were indulging ourselves in the illusion of “fighting” treason, subversion, communism and racemixing—in other words, the Jews—without DOING anything and without hurting the enemy himself. If we did NOT have such silly little secret meetings, we would eventually build up such a pressure of frustrated patriotism that we just might have done something forceful, and therefore effective.

My wife took up a little collection, we passed out membership cards and then stood around babbling, as is the inevitable custom after such “battles” with the enemy. Everybody congratulated everybody else at this new and terrible assault on the “Eskimos,” as John Kasper called them then, and we went home all aglow with the great “success.” […]

I poured out my time and money in an all-out effort to organize the right-wing “nicely,” under the aegis of the American Federation of Conservative Organizations, and published a national conservative paper. We held meetings in the best meeting rooms in the Statler and Mayflower hotels. I had beautiful stationery engraved in gold. I used all my skill in art, writing, organizing, promoting and leading—the same skills which are now serving the American Nazi Party so well—but my best efforts were useless. The basic premise of conservatism was wrong.

Although it is made to appear so, the battle between the “conservatives” and “liberals” is not a battle of ideas or even of political organizations. It’s is a battle of force, terror and power. The Jews and their accomplices and dupes are not running our country and its people because of the excellence of their ideas or the merit of their work or because they have the genuine backing of the majority. The Zionists are in power in spite of the lack of these things, and only because they have driven their way into power by daring minority tactics. They can stay in power only because people are afraid to oppose them, afraid they will be socially ostracized, afraid they will be smeared in the press, afraid they will lose their jobs, afraid they will not be able to run their businesses, afraid they will lose their political offices. It is fear and fear alone which keeps these filthy left-wing sneaks in power. It is NOT ignorance on the part of the American people, as the “conservatives” keep assuring each other—“ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”—when the truth is that any slave knows the truth—that he is a slave—but he is not free in spite of knowing this truth, unless he can somehow obtain the power to force his way to freedom. It is not the truth which will make us free in America, because millions already know the truth and hate bitterly what is going on, but they are afraid even to admit they know the truth. Ten million signed the petition for Joe McCarthy and they are not all dead, although they might as well be, as long as the right-wing spends all its time and money trying to “win” another ten million instead of getting the ten million we already have to stand up! We have plenty of people, money and facilities to take America back from the traitors tomorrow morning if all the people who already know what is going on were not afraid anymore and would stand up!

As long as the right-wing confines its fighting to being “nice,” the great masses of the public will bow down like the sheep they are to the left-wing which is NOT nice—which uses smear, economic persecution, legal harassment and finally, physical terror to maintain its domination of our national life and culture by force. The force is disguised, of course, in checkbooks, judges’ robes, rigged party conventions, etc., but it is still force or the threat of it which has America down and afraid. No amount of papers and pamphlets, were they all masterpieces of propaganda, and no amount of talk and meetings can stop this growing left-wing force and power, and the fear it inspires—much less drive it back and destroy it.

But in 1955, I still imagined we could “sneak up” on the Jews, like my sissy friends. We would build a great “grass-roots” membership by not mentioning the Jews at all, or even praising them. Then, while they suspected nothing, we could become stronger and stronger and finally, one fine day, we would wipe the smiles off our faces, spin around on the surprised Hebrews and let them see just what we had in mind!

I found this coward’s dream being promoted everywhere I went. Every “conservative” I met would draw me aside and groan about the latest outrages and treason of the “you-know-whos” and describe to me the latest plans to sneak up on the tormentors. I was as much beguiled by this childish illusion as anybody else. l spent hundreds of hours discussing the methods for this super-sneaky revolution and the only thing I gained from it all was the final discovery that it was and always has been impossible to unseat the terrorists by talk. One must dislodge such evil usurpers by the same weapon which got them in: POWER! Theirs was and is secret and disguised. Ours, by nature, must be open, legal and honest, but it must still be power, not talk or pamphlets or sneaky dreams. Thus it involves risk.

I also grew to know the people my wife and I came to call the “die-hards,” for some obscure reason I can’t recall. These were the perennial “patriots,” the eternal attendees of meetings, the inexhaustible babblers, the super-clever know-it-alls who are going to “throw the election into the house this time” and the disgusting hobbyists who discharged their pent-up “patriotism” once a week or so in the masochistic orgasm they seemed to obtain by flagellating themselves with the latest outrages of the Jews. These people seemed to have been “fighting” the Jews all their lives, decade after decade. Their standard reaction to anything they didn’t think up themselves in the way of new schemes for sneaking up on the Jews was, “I was fighting this thing before you were born, son.” This was supposed to send the upstart packing, as if people who had spent forty or fifty years fighting so unsuccessfully had any business opening their mouths at all. These “die-hards” would insist on bending one’s ear endlessly and at all hours of day or night. Any attempt to escape from them was taken as a personal insult. My wife and I grew to dread the sessions with the “die-hards,” who were not interested in doing anything except talk and were World Champions at the pastime.

Our meetings were better and better attended, but there was no result at all. Nothing was accomplished. As the months wore on and we began to see our small savings diminish with no signs of any real progress, I began to come down with a case of “desperationitis” so common to the right-wing. I had begun to meet a large, unorganized, but regular circle of “patriots” which exists everywhere, with whom I discussed all kinds of tricks for “spilling the beans” about the Jews, all at once. There were endless plans for dropping “the whole story” out of airplanes on top of the public, while the helpless Jews watched in impotent rage as the millions of leaflets fluttered down, out of the sky. There was talk of a plan to raid a TV station of one of the major networks and hold the personnel at gunpoint, while one of us—nobody cared to discuss who, exactly—would present to the breathless millions the documents and facts on the jewishness of Communism, which we have in such abundance, but which mean so little as long as we reach only one another. There was even a scheme for sending aloft huge signs on balloons, tied to inaccessible places, which would “squeal” on the Jews from the sky, while they scrambled madly to get them down. These wild ideas are actually being discussed, right now, as you read this, by otherwise intelligent people somewhere, people who are simply too overwhelmed by their own timidity and ignorance to understand that even if they played these nasty tricks on the Jews, there would be no result at all.

Just two weeks ago, as I write this, the Jews used two or three minutes of one of my speeches to introduce a long program on behalf of race-mixing on a national TV network show. Mine was the only voice for the White man in that dreary hour of Jewish race-mixing propaganda. The Hebrew media-masters even used the section of one speech in which I explained that the Jew Communists were organizing the colored races of the world in a mass assault on the White Man. The Jews imagine, in their own ignorance, that my speech, delivered to a howling mob in Washington in all its naked passion and ferocity, will repel people—which is just as wrong as the “die-hards” with their silly idea that “spilling the beans” will somehow “wake up the people” and attract their support. Neither is the case. People are more inert than it is possible to believe, even after you discover their inherent inertia. It takes an incredible quantity of propaganda, repeated over and over and over to move them even a little bit. This is one of the reasons Joe McCarthy told me that he wouldn’t even attempt to tell the whole truth. “They’d simply put me away as a lunatic,” he said, “and the public would forget what it was all about.” And he was probably right.

The idea that there is anything easy that can be done which will send the Jew traitors scurrying for Israel like rats, while we walk triumphantly into the White House, is one of the worst self-delusions which has been keeping the right-wing babbling and conspiring while the Jews have been laughing at us and trampling all over our Constitution, our rights, our traditions, our dignity and our White Race.

Anybody, when he first discovers what is going on, might be forgiven a certain period of nourishing this delusion and hope, but when he sees the Jews starving the families of his fellow hopers who lose their jobs, who get railroaded into jail, shipped to “mental health centers” and are smeared and blasted for just the slightest attempt to stand up to Jewish power, he ought to get the idea in no more than a few years. Any man who spends thirty or forty years pretending to imagine there is such an easy way, while our country and our White Race go down and down is not a dreamer, nor is he ignorant. He is a coward!

“Conservatives” are the world’s champion ostriches, muttering to one another down under the sand in “secret,” while their plumed bottoms wave in the breezes for the Jews to kick at their leisure. They are fooling nobody but themselves.

I had already sold Russell Maguire, the publisher of Mercury Magazine, an article about U.S. follies in Iceland, so I now planned to propose further work for him. I called and arranged an appointment in his lavish Park Lane apartment in New York.

I had never met him and was happy and relieved to find him the opposite of my recent employer in Memphis. He was small, intelligent, unassuming and seemed utterly dedicated to the cause of America and the White Race. We talked over the “movement,” as patriotic leaders inevitably do upon meeting, and agreed that what was needed was what he called a “hard-core.” I told him I thought eventually we would need a Nazi Party, and he agreed, but said it would have to be done with extreme secrecy. At the time, I didn’t know enough about it to argue him out of that idea, as I do now, so I went along with that, too.

Then he offered to put me on the payroll in his Fifth Avenue offices as his assistant, to help promote Mercury Magazine, his beloved project, and to begin quietly setting up the “hard-core” he wanted. Even if this had not been what I dreamed of, I would have taken it at the handsome salary. Here was the opportunity praised for by many a young American I knew: getting paid for fighting treason! I reported for work almost immediately and had the trailer hauled by a moving company to a trailer park in Moonachie, New Jersey, just across the river from Manhattan.

For awhile, it seemed too good to be true. I “broke my neck” for Maguire, and he seemed to appreciate it. He was willing to listen to suggestions and accepted them. It was heaven after the office in Memphis! But then I began to get into the office intrigues, which go on in every office in the world and my position, which had no title, became difficult. Sometimes “R.M.,” as the staff called this tiny multimillionaire, would send me over to pounce on all the mail at his Mercury office on 50th Street and search through it in order to see if the staff over there—including his own daughter who was the boss at Mercury —were filching from or messing up the mail accounts! This did not endear me to that staff, nor did I gain any popularity when I discovered leftwing sympathies in some of the editors and presented the evidence as was my duty, to the boss. Part of my job was also to filter the thousands of requests for financing which plague every wealthy man and throw out the scoundrels, the fakes, the boobs and quite a few decent people with whom R.M. simply did not want to be bothered.

Meanwhile, I was busily searching out and rounding up the talent for Maguire’s “hard-core.” In the process, I came across a man named DeWest Hooker. When I met Hooker, once again, my life changed permanently. Hooker already knew Maguire and Hooker had been the nearest thing to a Nazi since the Bund. He was a graduate of Cornell, exactly my age, with the same temperament, same ideas, and infinitely more experience.

He was handsome, so handsome that he made money as a professional model, whom I still see in cigarette ads. His rugged, aristocratic face was framed by perfectly groomed hair, greying at the temples. His build was athletic and tall, and he walked with a bounce and spring in his step which is rarely seen among our beat people. He was a descendant of the Hooker who had signed the Declaration of Independence, with millionaire parents and a millionaire wife.

But, most important of all, Hooker was a Nazi! He was not a “patriot” or a “right-winger” or a “conservative,” but a fighting, tough, all-out-Nazi. He had gone into the streets of New York City and rounded up gangs of tough kids and potential juvenile delinquents, and converted them to fanatical loyalty to the United States, the White Race and Adolf Hitler. He called this gang of little hoods the Nationalist Youth League, and I was deeply impressed when I saw what leadership and guts will do to make decent, dedicated Americans out of little lost baby gangsters. Hooker had those kids worshiping him! He was an obvious aristocrat from a mansion in Greenwich, Connecticut, who wore a Homburg and a Chesterfield with supreme dignity, and he led those little New York gutter kids out of despondency to form picket lines against Jewish Communism, right in its filthy stronghold: New York City!

My first meeting with Hooker was on a Thanksgiving Day, when he was due at a family dinner, but we got so totally absorbed in our discussion that he kept his wife waiting hours, until she was very angry at him. As we talked, he told me one amazing thing after the other.

Wes explained the Jews to me more clearly than I had ever figured out before. He described, with dramatic gestures, how they operate like a snake with different skins, which they crawl out of or into as the strategic need may arise. When Jewish Communism begins to get too “hot,” as it has here in the U.S., because of the millions who saw the parade of Jew Communist spies, they slide out of that skin and become Zionists. And when this also gets too hot, then they molt and become “anti-communists” or something else. In the excitement, nobody ever seems to notice that it is always the same snake.

Even more enlightening, he gave me a sparkling clear picture of the mess I had come to know on my own as the “movement”—the cowards, the loud-mouths, the hobbyists, the ADL agents, the “prostitutes” who make money out of it—the whole depressing lot of them. […]

I discovered Hooker hated Maguire, for whom I was working. Maguire, he said, was rabid only on one thing, the Mercury, his pet project—and the hell with the cause itself. He told me that Maguire was utterly ruthless financially and would weasel out of any deal he could, if it cost him money. He even claimed that Maguire had tried to hire him, Bill Evans (for whom I had obtained the loan from Snowden) and another man to kill key Jews at $10,000 a head, but that he became so difficult to pin down on the money question, they felt he would never pay. In fact, some of the boys wanted to shoot Maguire instead. Hooker said Maguire would talk forever about his “hard-core,” but would never do anything.

Meanwhile, in our trailer in Moonachie, my wife and I were very happy, considering the restricted living-space. She was once more pregnant, but we had money in the bank and our family grew daily more loving and united. With the pay coming in steadily and Maguire promising me raises for a job I wanted very much to do, the future seemed ideal.

I spent a good deal of time with Wes at his place in Greenwich and in New York. He had been driven out of business and political activity by the Anti-Defamation League and Jacob Javitz who was at that time New York Attorney General. The Jews had even obtained a permanent injunction against him in New York, as they are trying now to do in my case. He had to move from Larchmont, New York, to Greenwich, Connecticut.

Hooker was convinced that the “movement” would never succeed in the U.S. because, he said, “The “fat-cats” are too selfish and greedy ever to support a movement the way the Jews support their boys.” He was disgusted, and I couldn’t blame him, after I heard the series of experiences he had had with the “fat-cats,” as he called them—experiences which I have since “enjoyed” myself.

These creatures would pay any amount for some little pet project they had in mind, but they would not pay any money to the human talent necessary to get a fighting, efficient organization together, as the Jews do.

I still felt then that they could be persuaded to back a responsible plan and responsible people, and talked West into holding off on his plans to quit the movement and go back into business to make money, as he had previously done in TV, for instance, where he had made $40,000 a year. I told West I was working for Maguire with specific instructions to organize such a group. He scoffed and said Maguire would welch. I felt differently and stuck up for Maguire all the way. I felt sure I could bring these two good men together eventually, in spite of the wild talk and charges.

Hooker has the genius which is desperately needed by the dead right-wing, and I felt sure I could get Maguire to back him eventually as a leader. I had to run back and forth between them, as you would between two pouting school girls who had turned their backs to one another. But little by little, I got them closer together. Finally, Maguire agreed to a secret meeting between Hooker, himself, Fred Willis (Maguire’s oldest and best friend), and myself at Maguire’s Park Lane apartment.

Hooker put his full faith into the effort and came up with complete list of all the people and “leaders” in the movement, their records, their potentials and their drawbacks. He also had an accurate list of the spies and agents of the Anti-Defamation League which had Maguire itchy-fingered. Although it irritated him and went against his nature, I even got Hooker worked up to the point where he called Maguire “Sir,” as I did.

We presented a complete plan for a slow, secret Nazi build-up under Hooker throughout the U.S.A. using the personnel and leaders already so well known to Hooker, a front group with an “almost” Nazi flavor and—financing by Maguire. Eventually, we felt that most of the other rich men would help, if they could see something first. Maguire seemed entranced with everything we presented. Hooker wanted to give him the complete list of ADL and other Jewish agents, plus the evaluations of all right-wing leaders, but I had suggested holding off until we got some kind of commitment. This tactic got results.

“All right!” said Maguire, with the air of a man suddenly decided on an immense step. “I’ll back it! The country doesn’t have five years left! We’ve simply got to do it! I’ll put in a thousand dollars for the first year!”

Hooker looked at me with his mouth open. I looked at Hooker, then we both looked at Maguire’s old friend, Willis. Here was a multimillionaire with over $80 million, sitting in an apartment which was costing him at least $1500 a month, to say nothing of his fabulous palace on the waterfront in Connecticut—and he was telling us that he was going to “back” a national political movement of gigantic proportions to save America, with $1000 a year! And he was going to do this great thing because “we only have five years left!”

Hooker and Willis were all for giving Maguire hell right there and then. Willis was worse than disgusted and said so, but Hooker kept quiet at my request.

I tried again. I knew Maguire spent hundreds of thousands of dollars per year printing Mercury and reprints from the magazine, plus all kinds of material for his four or five offices. I reasoned that if he were too stingy to contribute, perhaps we could get him at least to trade with us as printers, and thus finance the movement. We had dozens of young men who would learn the printing trade overnight and work like horses for nothing—which would make all the printing profits pure gravy for the fight.

Scrambling wildly in my mind to put this deal together while keeping peace at the meeting I made the pitch to Maguire and he accepted it. He agreed to give us the printing and the “fabulous” thousand dollars a year!

We parted at the canopied door on Park Avenue. Willis seemed too disgusted to talk any further. After hearing Maguire moan and groan year after year about the utterly desperate situation of America and the White Race, after hearing him admit that the only way to save ourselves from the Jews was with a tough, hard core, it must have been galling in the extreme to see him sitting on his money bags and offer to toss us a few-coppers for going out into the streets to have our heads bashed in by tyrants.

Hooker and I went to his club (Cornell), right around the corner and sat in the library trying to calm down and get our bearings for further action. In spite of the setback, it seemed to me at the time that I had rescued things with the printing deal. I wanted to plunge full speed ahead with arrangements. Hooker was understandably sour and predicted that Maguire would simply welch again, but I wheedled him into going along on the deal. He admitted that I had had more success than anybody so far with Maguire, just by getting on the payroll and arranging the meeting. Maguire, he pointed out, usually refused to see more than one person at a time, to avoid witnesses. So, West had a flicker of faith in my own enthusiasm and we went to work setting up a printing plant.

We got a press, a little store, started the boys frantically reading manuals on printing, held meetings, planned financing, raised money and generally did all the things necessary to be ready to handle our end of the business deal. Then I went to Maguire and said we were ready to start with some small printing orders, perhaps office forms.

It is probably an insult to the reader’s intelligence to state bluntly what happened. Men do not suddenly change their habits—Maguire welched. There was no printing to be had at any of his offices. Not only did he welch, but I now became a source of great discomfort for him. My presence was a silent, unspoken, even unconscious rebuke to him for his faithlessness. It was hard for him to go through the “we’ve only got five years left” bit with all his visitors, as he did every day, with me at his elbow. […]

Maguire’s daughter was the boss at Mercury, and it was not long before I discovered an indefinable blockage to everything I tried to do in the office. I thought at first it was his daughter, Natasha, but found out that the old man himself was behind a few louse-ups. One day he called me from his office and told me to meet him two floors below. He didn’t want us to be seen conferring. We met in the men’s room and he told me that his wife was giving him a hard time about me. She was a White Russian, he assured me, and on “our” side, but didn’t want to jeopardize the luxurious life she had attained with her husband, nor risk the security of her children. It was the old story, but I never expected to hear it from a multimillionaire. Maguire told me his wife was so upset that he was taking her on a Caribbean cruise, a pattern I have since learned that he follows whenever things get too hot, as they did recently when the New York papers blasted him at the instigation of the ADL for being “anti-Semitic,” which the sly little fox denied!

He told me his wife had heard of my efforts to organize a “hard-core” for him, and was “terrified.” He whispered on and on so disgustingly about the pressure on him, and kept referring to the possibility of “cutting the thread,” meaning my employment, that I naturally offered to resign. He accepted before I managed to get the words out, assured me that he would secretly support me with cash, instead of the salary, to keep up my work, and “soon” would give us the printing business to launch the movement. Needless to say, none of this materialized.

He did, however, buy two of the articles I did when the Marine Corps was under attack by the reds for its eliteness and aristocratic, tough traditions… But that was about the last I ever saw of Russell Maguire or his money. He is probably still telling people we have only five years before it is all over, so we must hurry and subscribe to Mercury! We are, I suppose, to beat the Jews to death with baled copies of this non-anti-Semitic journal. Since this was written, he has sold out altogether and run.

Many right-wingers are sincerely concerned, I know, about my battles with men such as Maguire, Snowden, et al. and my revelations of what they really are. “They are doing good,” I am told, “why not let them go about their business their own way. They are helping. Don’t hurt them.”

I maintain that they are only giving the appearance of helping. They are the ones who are actually hurting. Before a mass of people will rise up and do anything effective and forceful about a tyrannical situation, there must be built up a certain emotional pressure. A firecracker has not the force of a rifle bullet because it explodes harmlessly in all directions. But the gas from a rifle bullet cannot escape, except by forcing the bullet out at terrific speed,because it is confined and directed into useful channels.

As long as Maguire and all the rest of his ilk, rich and poor, can give themselves the illusion of fighting the Jews by exploding the pressure inside of them verbally and harmlessly—in all directions—without hurting a single Jew traitor, they keep the all-important pressure from building up sufficiently so that we will get mad enough to fight. The Jews know this and so permit these hundreds and hundreds of harmless little right-wing organizations to spout incessantly and unheeded, behind the Jewish “paper curtain” of silence. These organizations don’t reach any significant number of people outside their own group and when they do, their approach is so feeble and wrong-headed that they recruit only a few odd-balls. They never, never get out into the public, into the streets, in order to reach the masses with an inspiring and driving, masculine movement, which alone can win their hearts!

If just one tenth of the cold cash which has been pouring for decades into such “firecracker” movements were to be contained, directed, and channeled behind an ideological bullet in the form of fighting men with a fighting message, the Jews would stop at nothing to crush and destroy that deadly “bullet.” Even without the large amounts of this figurative gunpowder, but with force and direction, the bullets we have been firing have earned the all-out attack of the Jews—the only sure sign that we are firing something far more effective than the usual right-wing “gas” at them. The Jews know that our brand of sniping will eventually destroy their illegal, tyrannical power. […]

As long as the hordes of tricky little “patriot” societies all over America allow our oppressed and harassed people to blow off the pressure caused by this filthy tyranny once a week in harmless “wind” and “gas,” there will never appear in America that holy and awesome power of aroused masses, the raging fires of social upheaval, which alone have always toppled the greatest tyrants, and for which there is no substitute. There are plenty of people already awake in America, They are afraid and they are frustrated by their inability to do anything about the terrible evil which they see growing.

Mercury Magazine does indeed “inform” a lot of people. But we don’t need any more informed people who won’t stand up and fight to oppose tyranny. Such things as Mercury also keep the “steam pressure” of emotions down in millions of Americans who are already informed and who feel that as long as Mercury is published, “something” is being done. Such Americans are also fooled by the constant advice to “write your congressman,” as if we can somehow petition or talk our way out of tyranny. But worst of all, Mercury, and a thousand other little projects like it, are financial leaks which keep the right-wing bled to death. There simply is no money for the battle, no money for the bullets and powder, because it has all been spent on firecrackers, uniforms, the band, pictures of the enemy, exciting rallies and bed-time stories for the troops.

Australia is gone

by Pat Hannagan

The following is a recent comment at Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer:


Australia is rapidly being shutdown in terms of any “free speech” that is not in full concordance with the ruling media and political dynasty of communist anti-Western / anti-White policy and propaganda.

We have the media inquiry instigated by Labor PM Ms Gillard, driven by the appointed Jew Mr Ray Finkelstein QC. (link)

We have NSW “conservative” Premier Mr O’Farrell “…who is concerned there have been no successful criminal prosecutions in the history of the NSW laws and that they have fallen out of step with community expectations”, now demanding an “inquiry that will consider strengthening anti-discrimination laws to make it easier to convict people for serious racial vilification”.

Note well: The inquiry has been welcomed by the president of the Anti-Discrimination Board, Stepan Kerkyasharian, as “a great opportunity to deal with this matter”. Mr Kerkyasharian is, of course, a Jew. (link)

As is the Chairman of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, Mr John Searle.

It is illegal in Australia to point out what I have above, that certain drivers of anti-discrimination legislation and proponents of racial vilification laws in Australia are Jews.

The prominent neoconservative opinion writer Andrew Bolt, himself a lover of Israel and all things Jewish, was himself set upon by a coterie of Jews and taken to court for “hate speech” towards Aboriginals.

You can read about that also in Quadrant, and note all the Jews who orchestrated the campaign against him, as well as the aforementioned Justice Finkelstein. But, Bolt will never note that the Jews, on the whole, despise and revile him—he loves them! (link)

Furthermore, it is illegal to do so in Australia. That is why it is important that blogs such as Occidental Observer, administered out of the U.S.A. continue to allow comments.

You cannot rely on Australia to lead anything. Our bi-party system is in lock-step to shutdown White Australia, and criminalise White Australians.

Published in: on January 24, 2013 at 6:40 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags: ,

A VNN exchange

Brad
Excerpted froma long thread
on Vanguard News Network
forum:


Brad Griffin (pic above) said…

I don’t believe that Jews are 100% to blame for our situation. I believe there are many factors involved and that reducing it to the Jewish Question is simply an oversimplification of a complex process.

Do Jews share a lot of the blame? Of course.

The reigning mythology on WN [white nationalist] internet forum is that Yankees and Jews are somehow opposed to each other, but in the real world they are best friends and political allies and line up on the same side against the South in every national election.

The Jews and Yankees are both in the driver’s seat. They are the senior partners in the Democratic Party. They are allies, not enemies. It is only on the internet where the tiny minority of Northern WNs insist that Yankees and Jews are not on the same side.

I want to create a Southern ethnostate.

In the “Republic of Dixie,” Southern Whites would evolve into a European-style ethnic group, the “Dixians.” The new Southern ethnostate would be based on all the ingredients of a successful European nation: a common ethnicity, a common culture, a common religion, and a common history.

America was a failure because it was a “White Republic” based on race and republicanism. That’s why it ultimately disintegrated. We won’t make the same mistake again.

As we move “Forward” with Obama toward raising the debt ceiling and the inevitable California federal bailout, Texas is destined to lead the way toward Southern secession.

The North won’t resist Southern secession either. Progressives aren’t going to wage war against the South to preserve the Union. They will be left with unbridled control of the remainder of the United States.

100 years ago, there wasn’t a Jewish Question in the South. For the most part, Jews like Judah Benjamin were reconciled to the South’s racial traditions. There were even Jewish members of the original Ku Klux Klan.

Insofar as there was a problem with glorifying and promoting blacks over Whites, Yankees were 100% of the problem.

No one in the Confederacy wrote about the Jewish Question because the racial and cultural threat to the South wasn’t seen as coming from that quarter. Instead, it was the Northeastern Yankee “Black Republicans” like John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison who were out to destroy the Southern of way of life.

As always, the Yankees lined up and voted overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The White Republic died in 1865.

The Jews started moving here en masse in the 1880s and 1890s. The White Republic died because Yankees couldn’t stop demonizing the South over slavery. They couldn’t stop themselves from minding our business and taking the side of the blacks.

It happened again in the 1960s.

Alex Linder said…

“Main Jewish Cause” is accurate. “Single Jewish Cause” [i.e., monocausal view of the Jewish problem] is a strawman.

VNN focused on jews for two reasons:

1) they are the powers that be, in 2012

2) they are the ones no one talks about

VNN has always mentioned the lesser causes of our racial decline, foremost of which is the jebus cult, which you conspicuously omit to blame at OD [Occidental Dissent]. Without abolitionism, no civil war. Without christianity, no abolitionism.

I have asked to no answer why the Catholic church is far more hostile to nazism than to communism.

Racial and christian worldviews are competitive, not complementary. Race offers a different and superior basis for society, and the church does not want white man to figure that out, as it briefly was under Hitler. The church prefers communism, because as bad as it is, it is temporary, since it runs against basic human nature, and will eventual disappear. Communism is such a repulsive and malignant jewish baby that even the ugly mexican baby of catholicism is appealing beside it. The key understanding is that there is nothing in the jebus cult that has any problem with the white race (or the South, for that matter) disappearing off the face of the earth. If there’s no doctrinal support for whites as whites, the doctrine is bad for us.

Originally Posted by Lew, for Alex:

What, exactly, do you hope to accomplish by attacking Christianity the way that you do? Who is your audience for these criticisms?

Audience is thinking adults. I hope to reduce respect for the cult in general by demonstrating its impotence and delusionality, the jew-obsequiousness of its leaders, and the functional anti-Whiteness of its doctrines. I would like to see the cult disappear among the white race. Christianity is criticized by jews for the wrong reasons, leading unthinking white men to think it must be basically good, just as WN foolishly assume same of Pat Buchanan because jews criticize him. Not so. The cult is a terrible thing—for reasons seldom given. I give those reasons, and I indicate how a race-firster were wise to treat the church, based on real-world evidence.

If a person is a WNist pagan or an atheist (like me), the person doesn’t need convincing Christian theology poses problems for racialists. If a person is a generic Christian, or a Christian with racial sympathies, and they do in fact exist, it doesn’t seem likely your critique will convince them to do anything different.

A christian with racial sympathies is confused and divided of mind, and needs the contradiction brought out so that he can decide which master to serve. And, by the way, as much ego as I use, I certainly don’t expect adult males to bow before me and proclaim me their leader; I expect the power and form of my delivery to put a little doubt behind their facade. And they can think it over privately away and safe from my mocking, which is, yes, quite vicious and harsh.

Related: why is attacking Christianity important when Jews hold much of the real power in society, and to the extent white gentiles hold significant power in society, they are almost all secular liberal egalitarians who reject Christianity?

Those secular liberal egalitarians are almost all christians, in fact. It’s important to attack christianity and conservatism because they are competitors for the minds and support we need for our cause. WN, coming from a Southern conservative background, have not understood this. This is why they freely mix these things. But that’s not what will work. We must distinguish and elevate our racial cause by attacking conservatives as our enemy, as I advocate in my essay elsewhere. Not by mixing with it and drowning ourself in it. We must be intolerant in order to rise, in order to gain the strength to defeat the main enemy—not mushy.

Smoothing over differences doesn’t work. It’s effeminacy. It allows our enemy, jews, to infiltrate and subvert us. It allows our enemy conservatives to steal our men and arguments and fundraising—without ever supporting our positions publicly (perfectly parallel to a girl you would fuck but not introduce to your parents). It creates a gauzy haziness that leaves just WTF we are unclear in the public mind, hence boring and shruggable.

Clarity, distinctions, principles, edges—all these things that are foreign to folks who think that everyone except the principled assholes like me can get along fine under a big tent. Macdonald is politically clueless. Greg Johnson is $$$-interested, and cuts his behavior by his prospects. Our new buddy Jethro [Brad Griffin] inhabits personalities like a hermit crab shells. These don’t get the job done. What does is shown by Golden Dawn, in Greece of all goddam places:

• real men under real names (99% of WN fall off)
• real men not afraid to name the jew and buck jew taboos (100% of conservatives)
• real men not afraid to fight in the street
• real men who spend their time and money helping their people in thousand ways, providing all kinds of services for free, out of love and duty and responsibility

Our situation, in America, is not as desperate as in Greece. So people aren’t looking so much for our leadership. But if they were tomorrow, we wouldn’t have anything prepared. And that’s to our shame, and for the reasons I indicate—we are unwilling to define who we are, and figure out the principles we will back under our real names with our real lives.

This is not a game, just because we treat it like one.

Whites prove by their behavior they support our basic position: they, South and North, want to live among other whites. And not be discriminated against because of their race. And not have the borders left open, and citizenship held cheap. And they want sexual normality, and just ordinary decency on tv, so you can actually watching something in the day or evening that you don’t cringe every fucking five seconds if your parents or grandparents are in the room.

Every fucking one of you knows exactly what I mean. This is the shit-kultur that jews have built—and we let them. And your goddam jesus dick suckers have had 2,000 years to get your shit in order, and you have fucking failed. You are a big plate of stewed cats anuses to me, perhaps tasty to some imagination-free slant-eyed third-shift Kia employee, but unfit for human consumption. Get the fuck out of the way, you fucking jebus nuthuggers. WE will clean up culture; you sad fags aren’t woman enough for the job. I figuratively piss on the grave of your imaginary jewish science-fiction hero.

Just listen to the tone of the MacDonald, Johnson and Parrott conversation. The first two are professionally deformed, per the French expression. Incapable of inciting passion in people by nature of the discipline their background has required of them. Parrott I think has an inkling.

I wish you fags who presume to doubt me would read the Golden Dawn thread, and watch some of the videos.

That’s what’s going on in WN. It’s not some 90-yo jerkoff speaking in coded language to old ladies, it’s young men raising arms, flags, chants—roofs, as da niggers say. Figure it out. Jesus Christ, I am so fucking tired of being a remedial common sense teacher I could puke.


Brad Griffin said…

Here in the South, the Southern Baptist Convention was the last mainstream institution in the entire country to fall into line with the anti-white mainstream culture. They didn’t figure out that “racism” was a sin until the mid-1990s.

Linder conveniently ignores the fact “racism” was coined by European and Jewish atheists. He ignores the fact that the Soviet Union—which was officially atheist—pushed “racism” into the mainstream through its tentacles in world communism.

He ignores the fact that it was the secular universities, not the churches, where this nonsense got started in America. It was secular intellectuals like John Dewey who fell the hardest for it in the 1930s and 1940s and who made “racism” taboo in the aftermath of the Second World War.

After “anti-racism” had triumphed in the universities and among the intelligentsia in the 1930s and 1940s, then other mainstream institutions began to fall in line with the new consensus. Every single mainstream institution has been infected by this disease and the churches were among the most resistant but for some reason Linder blames the churches instead of the secular intellectuals who spearheaded the movement.

Here’s a reality check for Alex:

(1) You will never guess which state was the first to legalize gay marriage. It was Vermont which is the most secular, the most atheist, the least religious, and one of the least conservative states in America.

(2) The Jesus nuthuggers have gotten out of the way in the Northeast. They have gotten out of the way in Britain and Scandinavia. They certainly aren’t standing in the way in San Francisco.

And the result? It is precisely those places where cultural degeneracy has been taken to its greatest extreme. It is precisely those places where cultural degeneracy is called “progress,” not “worse is better.”

Does anyone know of an atheist country that is “pro-White”? The Soviet Union was officially atheist. Vermont is the least religious state in America. San Francisco is one of the least religious cities.

Alex is always picking on the British: in 2012, the British are thoroughly de-Christianized; in 1912, Britain was thoroughly Christian. Has the decline of Christ-Lunacy in the UK or Sweden or Norway over the past century produced a more racialist society? Is there anyone here who is excited about the prospects of racialism winning a mass following in San Francisco or Vermont?

Religion is a barrier that makes the Jew an outsider.

Alex Linder said…

One movement arose to restore white supremacy over a continent; the church opposed. I’m not sure what else you need to know. The top prelate in Greece has also condemned Golden Dawn in Greece.

The church, like the anti-white NWO socialists that spawned from it, is universalist, and universalism is inherently anti-white.

Brad Griffin said…

How so?

The church approved of slavery for centuries. The church approved of racialism for centuries.

Is there any historian who argues that Disraeli was anti-White? Every historian that I know of argues that Britain became more racialist after the 1850s.

Alex Linder said…

It became less elitist. In his novels he [Disraeli] wrote that blood is everything, and the world is ruled by a tiny minority behind the scenes, and in both instances he meant jews. Britain was already well into universalist fantasies at that point, and guess where those fantasies originated? In the sicko christ cult.

Christianity is liberalism. Or, as Spengler put it, christianity is the grandmother of bolshevism. Without christ-insanity, you wouldn’t have the progressive, secularist, communist garbage—the latter is simply an evolution of the former. They are both anti-white, and no different than the Republicans are from the Democrats.

Brad Griffin said…

That’s a stretch.

There is nothing in the Bible about natural rights. There is some talk in the Bible about equality in a purely spiritual otherworldly sense, but there is also talk about genocide and blood and soil and homophobia and patriarchy. The Bible explicitly endorses slavery.

The first thing that Jacobins did in France, who were inspired by the Enlightenment, was to behead King Louis XVI and overthrow the Gregorian Calendar and demonize the Church.

“Liberty” is the most important liberal value. Ron Paul is a liberal. Libertarianism is a species of liberalism.

Alex Linder said…

Originally posted by Griffin:

Ironically, it was also Oliver Cromwell who came up with the idea of the British as a superior “White” master race. There wasn’t much talk of “white supremacy” in Britain or Western Europe before Cromwell’s time.

Per E. Michael Jones, protestantism has always been very closely tied to jews. All these sub-cults imagine they are the real new jews. They’re idiots. Dangerous idiots.

The point is, British men came up with this idea of forcing everyone into their system. Everyone wants to be us. Everyone is jealous of us. One size fits all.

That’s why sane men have long observed, if it’s British or chrisitan, it’s usually a pretty lousy thing, and we don’t want it. Look at these creeps have made of the world, working hand in glove with the jew.

The only way out was indicated by NS, and the church you defend specifically, overtly and repeatedly denounced.

Christianity is the author of Europe’s decline. When the church goes, the racial animal will rebound. And that, I fervently hope, is what we are seeing harbinger of in Greece. From my lips to god’s ear that it will be the same in the US when the time comes.

Mississippi christian conservatism—nigger, please. You don’t produce Hitlers down there, you produce Shep Smiths.

Brad Griffin said…

Well, Christianity is pretty much dead in Britain and Scandinavia, and behold the result.

Alex Linder said…

Originally posted by Griffin:

Surely, you meant to say German supremacy, right?

No, not supremacy, merely leadership. Millions of Europeans understood what Hitler was doing, and felt it was needed and worth fighting for, even though they were not Germans.

Our point here is the church you’re defending did everything it could to destroy Hitler and undermine him. So for you to pose the idea the church is a defender of Europe’s racial health is unhistorical and ridiculous. Quote:

The church approved of slavery for centuries. The church approved of racialism for centuries. Salvation in the next world doesn’t imply racial equality in this world.

Slavery isn’t a pro-White institution. Whites have been enslaved many times. By jews and other muds.

The church’s universalism makes it anti-White. The fact it has not a single expressly pro-white doctrine or dogma makes it inherently anti-white.

The fact is that from day one, what was new and original about the church was that it was for everybody—it cut across all racial and social lines. This is why I tell you that christianity is liberalism. When these progressives go off against the christians, it’s exactly like Republicans doing battle with democrats. A big sham. They agree on basics, and they’re both against white racial solidarity. They both envision a new world order. One will bring about pan-mixian nirvana by digging wells, fixing cleft palates and adoption; the other will bring it about by speech codes and hate crimes laws and drone bombings. They pursue the same agenda by different means and emphases.

The white cause is wholly different.

Brad Griffin said…

I’m not seeing this great opposition between Christianity and “the white cause” in the South considering how Christianity and racialism coexisted here for over three centuries.

Alex Linder said…

That’s because you mistake mere contemporaneity or correlation for causation, like most of your mental inferiors.

[Quoting Griffin:]

The Church dominated European culture when all this talk about “whiteness” got started in the first place.

The church never spoke a word in racial defense of Europe. The church is international. There are more non-white christians than white christians. In light of that fact, it is ridiculous to say the church is a pro-white institution. It’s a universalist delusion factory. One of the three ugly desert sisters, as has been said.

Brad Griffin said…

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

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

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

rockwellThis painting depicts Ruby Bridges, the little girl who integrated the New Orleans school system in 1960, being escorted to her class by federal marshals in the face of hostile crowds. It’s a simple picture, the disembodied figures of 4 stiff suited men and the vulnerable yet defiant figure of a school age African American girl marching lockstep. To the right is a tomato staining a wall, obviously thrown at the girl but just missing. My eyes focus on the girl and her immaculate white, a contrast to the graffiti stained wall in the background. As a painting it’s a wonder, with it’s composition conveying Rockwell’s message in a few simple figures.

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

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

Rockwell’s most optimistic view of the civil rights movement was Negro in the Suburbs, painted in 1967. It depicts an African American family moving into a white suburban neighborhood. The African American children look over by the kids in the neighborhood, with all the children sharing a love of baseball, America’s game. This painting can be found in this gallery.

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

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

Alex Linder said…

All I see is how easily christian motifs of the sliced savior turn into “civil rights” morality plays and paintings.

On Obama’s reelection

One of the best articles, “A White Nationalist Memo to White Male Republicans” by Gregory Hood, was published today.

Note of March 2015: It’s unnecessary to quote the entire article; just click on the above link.

Linder responds to Johnson

This entry has been moved: here.