Cosmic ants and a few fragmentary thoughts in answer to maguire
In the thread to the recent JW post on immigration and the GOP, I rashly asserted that, “My belief is that for the next couple of decades a genuine Conservatism is absolutely capable of providing a serviceable vehicle for a survivalist ethos, informed by European sociobiological needs and leavened by a light touch in the areas of personal and economic freedom.”
Even more rashly, I then invited all-comers to attack this assertion. The invitation was accepted by the sturdy maguire who demanded, “a serviceable definition of this at this point in history.”
As luck would have it, I am too intellectually challenged to do serviceable. But here’s an unserviceable one for all sufferers of insomnia.
The political change required to address the crisis in the West lies on the scale of the revolutionary.
There is nothing new in this statement, extraordinary and disconcerting though it might at first seem to the conventional mind. The long journey out of thinking that our persecutor is “the left” or “the state” - or, indeed, “Islam” or “immigration” - undoes all faith in electoral solutions and inevitably lead to this conclusion. It is the putting away of causal simplicities and the beginning of political adulthood, of thinking in terms of scale.
At the same time, the purposive side of the equation - the “Great Question” of what we are to do - simplifies and tends in one of two broad directions, either:-
a) A collective spiritual renewal centred on a sacralisation of the folk,
or
b) a materialist approach serving the birthright of our sons and daughters.
It would be fair to say that the Revolutionary Conservatives or Traditionalists and the philosophers of the European New Right are grouped in the first category, and with them the Fascists and National Socialists of 20th Century Europe – notwithstanding the Nazis’ somewhat self-justifying ventures into racial science.
It would be entirely fair to say that present-day European political nationalism and American White Nationalism are grouped in the second category, albeit sometimes with longing sideways glances at the Speeresque glories of Nuremberg.
Of course, a cynical observer might conclude that the first group deals in ideas without too many facts, and the second in facts without any ideas. I am a such a cynic, but also a member of the second group. As such, for me the Great Materialist Question is: how can the gold standard of our children’s birthright be restored to its place at the centre of our collective life? Back comes the revolutionary answer, totally unambiguous: only by dissolving and washing away the corrupted liberalism, the universalism, internationalism, Jewish ethnocentric aggression and naked elitist power-mongering that are the authors of our fate.
At this point, of course, the scale of the challenge rises out of the mists like the most precipitous and brooding Alpine peak, upon whose glassy cliff-faces our purchase is perilous. Or worse.
It spites the obvious, then, to say that as a political contest this is a mismatch. So what are we to do, powerless, maligned and marginalised as we are? The only thing we can do, of course, since retreat back into twilight, to abandoning our children’s birthright, is not an option:-
We develop an appropriate strategy.
We materialists are not without strengths that the placemen and priesthood of liberalism don’t possess. It is difficult to say which is the greatest of these. For one is Truth, another Nature and the third Justice. A man who is in possession of the truth and who speaks justly to his brother’s nature, to common loves and loyalties, is not without strength. Somewhere in the privacy of his own heart he might even fancy that nothing, no worldly authority, can withstand such primal power indefinitely. And he might be right.
At least, this is the basis of my faith, if that’s what it is, that for now it is enough to speak. And here, of course, I mean “discourse” of a type calculated to attract the attention of intellectuals - not the sort of knockabout stuff required to motivate an army of activists.
Not that I decry populism and activism, and not that it isn’t time for them. Far from it. Popularising practical means by which our people can live in their own skins and recover some racial autonomy - even wriggle out a little from under the machinery of state - is essential and an unalloyed good. Were such methods to wind up hitting tax receipts and electoral legitimation, that would be even better.
But the Men of the West are not going to take down their rifles from the hook behind the farmstead door and march, hearts filled with righteousness, up the steps of the Capital Building. Their struggle is local and immediate to each individual. Even in the aggregate it does not amount to anything like a philosophically literate reply to liberalism. In this respect, the highest to which activism can ever aspire is to be part of some wider, distinct political philosophy – actually an expression of that philosophy. And that is the way forward. That is the way to replace traitorous government and the bestial system of political, cultural, business and financial elites which it serves.
The Beast itself is a symbiosis of power and ideas. The lower parts of its body, the musculature and bone of its legs and feet, are composed of earnest little believers in the nostrums of economic and egalitarian liberalism. In their tens and hundreds of thousands they struggle and squirm in their chosen directions, sometimes cancelling out one another’s efforts.
The upper portions of the body are quite free of such boorish concern. No arguments for Gay Rights, no encouragements to snout-in-the-trough capitalism circulate among its golden paternalists and superannuated geopoliticians without, somewhere, a superior smile, a dismissive wave affirming the order of things. For these are the addicts and dealers in the purest grades of power, and no drug is more prized there. The higher one raises up oneself to observe the Beast, the more raw and uncut with ideology is the power one encounters.
One need not raise oneself to especially dizzy heights for that, by the way:-
We are in a period of considerable social change. There will be unrest, but we can cope with the Toxteths … but if we have a highly educated and idle population we may possibly anticipate more serious conflict. People must be educated once more to know their place.
Department of Education official in a leaked secret report, 1983
And he’s only a civil servant high on Actonite. But he’s talking in the Beast’s native tongue. Further up – near, say, the cerebellum – the view seems to be not of “people”at all, even little ones, but of distant, scurrying worker ants. But ... these are ants with a cosmic purpose. Every four or five years they are needed to vote. And in any structure where power is, nominally at least, legitimised by democratic consent rather than naked force, they are not possible to entirely ignore. They have to be humoured, cultivated, kept sedated with shiny gewgaws and deep in debt.
Among them are ants of good, even high intellect whom, for one reason or another, the system did not see fit to co-opt. Some, it’s true, just couldn’t be co-opted at all. A matter of constitution
The beautiful, ironic thing is that the rigid system of political interpretation and information control out of which consent is manufactured drives more and more of these six-legged creatures into dissidence everyday. The best and most independent-minded, most original thinkers do not desire to have their opinions prescribed for them by a self-interested Establishment. Much less do they desire their sensibilities to be prescribed by a vile, anti-racist commissariat. They are perfectly capable of finding in the moral boo-words the need to construct a simplified rhetoric to evade complex discussion. They are perfectly capable of finding in the political trials and imprisonments a need to repress and terrorise those who, nonetheless, insist on complexity. They are perfectly entitled to follow Kant’s definition of Enlightenment as freedom “from self-incurred tutelage” and the goal of any modern society as the educated mind. And in that we can be of some assistance.
These dissidents, be they present or future, are our highest-value audience. Here we stand, equipped with our three argumentational virtues: Truth, Nature and Justice. We have to communicate them in the hope that we will be heard by as many good men as possible.
As I noted earlier, there are really only two philosophical models that we can speak about, each of them revolutionary in action. One begins in the quest for the spiritual race. But it ends in binding the people firmly to the mast of ethnic interest, for which purpose the supremacy of party or state over the individual serves.
During his early involvement with the party he would lead, Adolf Hitler sought to rename it the Social Revolutionary Party. It was an apt if unexciting name. All revolutions require crisis, and Germany had crisis in abundance - ethnic, political, social and economic. Crisis legitimates, necessitates, precipitates. All the emergency provisions, radical transformations and, usually, stern legal sanctions against members of the former regime which typify sudden and absolute political change are justified by crisis. Thus, after the Reichstag fire in 1933 the Nazis succeeded to government and embarked with formidable decisiveness upon the legislative process of Gleichschaltung. By summer 1934 one as good as lived or died by the will of the Party.
Now, the debate as to whether the “German Heavy Model”, as Alex Linder has called it, can be applied in some form in the 21st Century liberal West is legitimate. The crisis is here and now, and deepening every day. Even a National Socialism in its militarised, bouncing-into-Vienna, Final-Solution form is preferable to me than the loss of Europeans from Western Europe. If those were the only two options I would leap into the fray with a will, with all the consequences that might entail. But they are not, and the recoil from 1945 is such that the crisis will need to be very extreme and civil war probably inevitable before the German Heavy Model could be brought back to the centre of political life. I prefer to try to look for a kinder and more bearable future for our children.
So we come to the only alternative: one or other variation on the “Light English Model”, materialist in its view of Man and race, practical and anti-ideological in its political application, but still revolutionary.
The “light” in the English Model consists in a rare tolerance of the individual. But this is not the unfettered will deifed in the religion of liberalism, and not the atomised, purely self-interested actor of the “Conservative right” (which is also liberalism). No, the implicit understanding is that Man, if left free to pursue his own interests, will devotedly pursue his ethnic genetic interests. He does not need to be “educated” as to what they are or how to do it. He is the best judge of that already, as a fish is the best judge of how to swim and a bird to fly. To reconnect with his ethnic genetic interests he only needs the blinding light of liberalism to be switched OFF.
In that event also, he would quickly prove able to protect all the secondary interests he holds in common with his people: their territory, traditions, culture. The normal, healthy bonds of life that satisfied his forefathers would delight and satisfy him also. Human beings are cast from that mold, and the mold does not decay. For all its power and longevity and all the damage to organic society it has wrought, liberalism has not changed European Man so much that the only thing he can do is to destroy his own life and loves. He is like a compass needle beside which a magnet was once placed (by whom is not the subject of this essay). Take it away and he will re-centre himself on his ethnic genetic interests with the same certainty that the needle, freed of local distortion, returns faithfully to magnetic north. It may take some time. But it will be.
It should be obvious from the above that the individualism of the Light English Model is oriented towards the collective. Ethnic genetic interests are collective. Accordingly, it is necessary to understand the Model as every bit as much a social movement as any other. The collective ties are Nature’s binding. No National Socialist hands bind Man to the mast here. There is no need for the militarisation of society, no need for the mythification of a golden age, no need for torchlight, no need for a confected aryan “honour” nor lives of “glory”. The spiritual race is only an idea, an invention - exciting perhaps, inspiring even. But it does not exist in the material sense. Ethnic genetic interests do. They will express themselves, given the clearing away of any obstructions. And that’s what the Light English Model does.
As you may have guessed, it has another name that seems to offend nationalist sensibilities in America:-
By conservative, of course, I mean: acting from and for what is good in us. Its political partner is Conservatism with a capital “C”. In my odd little meaning, that’s not only the name of a British political party ... but of an alternative zeitgeist that should allow us to live as we must - as stable, self-loving, free and loyal European peoples sovereign in our lands. As I understand it here, Conservatism ... is the singular political expression of our particular nature.
Names don’t really matter. Nature matters, and Truth and Justice ... and any cosmic ants that happen across this, even for me, odd little article. I wonder what maguire will think.
Comments (158) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
Comments:
In America, conservatism =
. . . but as you say, substance, not words, is what ultimately matters. I’m afraid the term “conservatism” is lost on this side of the Atlantic, at least for several generations. The “conservative movement” over here is currently imploding before our eyes. Millions of people who feel cheated are dropping out of it.
Nazism was good for kids. All kinds of children were born under Hitler, more than before or after his time. Same thing at VNN, many of our people are having babies. It comes down to confidence.
I’d like to call myself conservative, usually have, but the problem is that the top cons are either sellouts or cowards. The lower-level ones are either patriotards or debaters. The left did not take power by persuading people but by threatening them with violence. Look at Brown vs. Board of Education. The jews responsible knew full well they were breaking the law. They had the power to do so, they used it. They will never treat us fairly. They treated me as unfairly when I was a race-free individualist conservative in college as they do now when they call me a nazi.
We don’t need a philosophy to counter liberalism. Liberalism isn’t a philosophy. It’s a maniacal cult that will brook no evidence. Our job is to take power from it any way we can, and since it never allows itself to be voted out or argued out, that seems to mean violence. I really don’t see how anybody who has dealt with liberals can believe otherwise.
Like I say 500x, we “nazis” represent the people. The people are against affirmative action, against open borders, against crazy foreign wars. But it never matters. No matter what the people vote for, the jewed courts and papers thwart their will.
You know, I was going to propose a joint MR-VNN action at Harvard during the spring semester 2008, before someone told me you wouldn’t go for it. My idea, which would raise a real and effective stink, is to protest the fact that at Harvard, and the ivies generally, jews occupy 50% of the law-school teaching positions. I may do it or I may not, alone. But I can’t think of a better way to put the focus on the jewing of our sick society. We’d be dealing with the cause, not the results.
Point is, liberals, which is a fancy word for jews, as jews are the driving power (Churchill’s term for the jew-Bolsheviks who gang-raped Russia) are a minority of whites. They, like jews and homos, can only win where they control the high points. There simply aren’t enough of them otherwise, and their views are so freaky that they can’t get honest support. They are anti-democratic because they have to be. The unchanging fact of the matter is that if they played by the rules they claim to support, they’d lose. So anyone who opposes them continues to be defined out of existence: ie, I’m an extremist-hater-nazi-supremist (sic), whereas Al Sharpton’s a respected black civil rights leader.
If any of you haven’t, and I’m sure 90% of you have, go to the calvin.edu German Propaganda Archive, put together and translated by a leftist professor, and read through the material. The hair will stand up on your [removed] as you see that the nazis were fighting precisely the same battle we are. They didn’t mince words like cowardly respectable WASPs. Where a Paul Craig Roberts calls jews nazis, the nazis called jews jews. That’s why I respect the nazis and that’s why I goad to PCR and his ilk to do better - and that goading actually works.
There is no clever way to beat the jews, and there is no way to turn the debate in our favor since the jews will continue to control tv and the newspapers. We must simply make the best use we can of the Internet media, as MR is doing, and continue to draw in the marginal man. In terms of public discourse, the way we have whatever affect we can have is to call things by their proper names. That is, no syncopated arguments or nomenclature. A jew is a jew. We don’t pretend we’re being respectable or clever or cunning or nice or wise by calling it something else.
WN and cons tend to argue this approach vs the other when in fact most can be carried out at the same time. We must fight the system while withdrawing from it. Reject their media and build our own while drawing from their sicko content the examples we need to reach new ‘investigators’ where they are, and lead them back onto the path of righteous Whiteness, so to speak.
I’ve said for a long time that the proper charismatic could indeed make a religion of race. Using Creativity or devising his own. It would work. It would not be granted tax status, but a genuine charismatic, a powerful, young, determined Brigham Young could very definitely build a large following. Look at Warren Jeffs, a rather unattractive man, skinny and intense. He created flocks of beautiful Nordic White teens, when all is said and done.
Well, enough said. My main point is the judeo-left controls the high points. They have every chance, and have had for decades, to treat us fairly, whether in the courts or the realm of discussed ideas. They never have and it is clear to me they never will. They will have to be forced to relinquish power. They will not be won over or argued out of their spoils, which after all they worked for long decades to obtain. If we are unhappy with the status quo, we must develop a combination powerful enough to upset it. They will never allow fair debate because they know as well as we do they’d lose.
Posted by Alex Linder on Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 02:54 AM | #
The problem with that approach is that any attack from our side upon the status quo invariably slams into the liberalism of the general population. Jewish influence in the mass media is a good example of this. The vast majority of whites have managed to convince themselves that Jews have individual rights which must be respected. From their vantagepoint, Jews should be “free” to buy up all the newspapers and magazines they want. The government should treat Jews as the “equals” of any other citizen. We must always “tolerate” other religions, races, ethnic groups. To act otherwise is “racism, bigotry, prejudice, hate.” More to the point, the rights of the individual take precedence over the common good of the group.
It is not enough to point out that Jews are drastically overrepresented in the news media, entertainment industry, financial sector, academia, government — and that this has a distorting effect upon our culture and public policies. All of this is true. Most intelligent and educated people already know this. The problem lies in persuading them that whites are justified in identifying with their race, organizing themselves politically as a racial group, and taking corrective action against their enemies to restore their racial dominance. While this may strike the two of us as self-evident, it is only because we are taking for granted certain guiding assumptions that our contemporaries sorely lack.
Which brings us to GW’s point: the war we are waging is ultimately philosophical. It is about challenging the hegemonic discourse of liberalism and replacing it with a philosophy more conducive to our genetic interests. This shouldn’t be taken as a point of disagreement. All three of us have clearly rejected liberalism and replaced it something else: GW’s conservatism, my communitarianism, your White Nationalism/National Socialism. Different words for a more collectivist ethos than currently prevails in the mainstream. We all recognize the Jewish threat and necessity of taking action against it. It is here that we seem to part ways.
You reference the Third Reich and hold that the struggle of the Nazis is analagous to our own. While there are many interesting parallels here, namely the Jewish problem, there are also many important differences. First, Germany was an ethnically homogeneous nation; a good fit for volk nationalism. White Americans are too ethnically mixed for National Socialism to succeed here. Second, Germany had only briefly experimented with liberalism before Hitler came to power. American culture has been marinating in liberalism for almost two hundred years. Third, Germany did not have other large racial minorities. Blacks and Hispanics are about a quarter of the American population. Fourth, Germany and America came to blows in the Second World War, so the “traitor” factor must be taken into consideration.
A grassroots movement by the American majority against Jewish power cannot afford the risk of being perceived and dismissed as “foreign.” I think Jared Taylor has the right approach here: arcane discussions of European history (i.e., Hitler, the Third Reich, the Holocaust, etc.) are a distraction from the racial struggle in North America. The best approach to them is no approach at all. They should be ignored or delegated to others. Besides, the responsiblility for vindicating the good name of the Third Reich and the German people ultimately rests with German nationalists. As for the inclusion of Jews in American racialist movement, I have come around to your view on this matter over the past year.
Jews simply cannot be trusted. The debacle at Amren last year poignantly illustrated that. It was quite revealing that so many of Taylor’s Jewish supporters have broken with him over “anti-semitism.” Even the ostensibly pro-white Jews like Lawrence Auster and Michael Hart care more about their own Jewishness than the preservation of Western civilization — see the recent tirades of the former against Steven Sailer. The risks involved in allowing Jews into racialist organizations outweigh the benefits. Given the sheer extent of the racial mischief caused by their tribe, I don’t see how racialist Jews can deny that whites have valid reasons to be wary of a Jewish presence amongst them. Instead of taking offense at “exclusion,” they should busy themselves with rectifying this situation amongst their own people.
You argue, “There is no clever way to beat the jews, and there is no way to turn the debate in our favor since the jews will continue to control tv and the newspapers. We must simply make the best use we can of the Internet media, as MR is doing, and continue to draw in the marginal man.” I tend to agree. For the moment, I see little for us to do besides expanding our web presence. We lack the numbers and the capital to sustain larger media ventures. The web is enables us to exploit audio and video anyway. Thousands of interlinked websites, forums, blogs that also make use of radio and YouTube — that’s our alternative media.
Rethinking WWII is a bridge too far for most Englishmen.They like most Americans have little else to be proud of, since our respective societies have been in freefall since 1945.
The respectability factor in defeating Germany gives to “victors” of WWII the same feeling opium gives to the addict..
Posted by Red Baron on Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 03:18 PM | #
We can point awakening Whites to specialists in real history, as Irving calls it, but my point was simply that we should study how the nazis fought the jews since, unlike conservatives, they actually beat them. Americans mouth the cliches of liberalism, out of fear as much as anything, but their behavior shows they prefer to live around fellow Whites. It’s not really a philosophical matter, in my opinion, it’s a technical matter. The enemy has power. This power is exercised through the government, the academy, and the mass media. If that power is overcome, if we appear even anywhere near being a credible takeover threat, plenty of ostensible liberals will join us. The people are an animal, and they are driven by fear tropisms, not philosophy. We can’t reward our friends or punish our enemies, at the moment. The judeo-System can.
Posted by Alex Linder on Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 04:28 PM | #
The Duke incident at AmRen was telling. It suggests that even in the unlikeliest places the natural jewish paranoia-hate-aggression outs, whereas Whites remain more or less inert. Whites just aren’t as aggressive as jews, so they make up for that with an intellectual understanding of the nature of the jew and the problem it poses, and a determination to solve that problem. Jared Taylor needed to have his feet held to the fire by Whites, but in fact it was jews who forced him to make a decision. That would be unbelievable as satire but it actually happened! And he came down in favor of the jews. I can only chuckle.
Posted by Alex Linder on Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 04:31 PM | #
“I think Jared Taylor has the right approach here: arcane discussions of European history (i.e., Hitler, the Third Reich, the Holocaust, etc.) are a distraction from the racial struggle in North America. The best approach to them is no approach at all. They should be ignored or delegated to others.” --Scimitar
I disagree. Nationalism and white racialism will not succeed until Hitler, The 3rd Reich and National Socialism are historically rehabilitated by an honest representation in popular awareness. Hitler was a nationalist and a racist and as long as he is continued to be demonized by the MSM and our educational system, the enemies of nationalism and white racism will be able to continue playing the Hitler Card anytime we try to put forth rational arguments for nationalism and white racism.
I am not talking about idolization of Hitler or reviving 3rd Reich uniforms and imagery. I am only saying that until Hitler is seen in an honest historical perspective, the demonic image that most whites have of him will preclude them from ever seeing nationalism and white racism in a rational manner.
The rehabilitation of Hitler, the 3rd Reich and National Socialism is a NECESSARY prelude to any hope of success for white nationalism and racial survival.
Below I present four posts from a thread that I started titled “Rehabilitating Hitler” which explain how the demonization of Hitler has been effected and why I believe that nationalism and white survival depend on that rehabilitation.
It is a long thread so I suggest that you scroll through and read my (Burrhus) posts. Too many of the other posters (not all of course) are irritating trolls. There are many wonderful pictures of Hitler showing him in a manner not often seen.
The two main points of the thread are 1) That people’s beliefs about Hitler are based largely on negative, emotionally-charged imagery and 2) That nationalism and white racial survival depend on Rehabilitating Hitler.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19705&highlight=rehabilitating+Hitler
Post #25 http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=291763&postcount=25
Post #181
“I believe that Hitler’s historical reputation needs to be rehabilitated before we can move forward because the iconic evil image of Hitler has been linked to both German 3rd Reich racialism and to National Socialism as a political philosophy. This demonization of racialism and National Socialism by extension from Hitler has led by further extension to the demonization of Nationalism per se. This is the crux of the matter.
The real purpose of those who maintained the WWII propaganda lies after the war and reinforced them so powerfully with the negative emotional conditioning to images of Hitler was not simply to damage Hitler’s historical reputation but to use that iconic evil reputation as a continuing weapon in their onslaught against efforts within white nations to maintain both their territorial national and racial integrity. Hitler-hate and the demonization of National Socialism are powerful weapons in the arsenal of those who are attempting to impose their One World political and race-mixed agenda on the white nations.
Anytime any white person attempts to advocate for Nationalism or racial separatism the globalists wave the bloody flag of Hitlerism and the holocaust and say, “See, this is the kind of evil that comes from Nationalism and racialism. We must abolish nations, have one world state and mix the races by integrating them and forcing all territories to exhibit diversity”. That is their goal and the demonization of Hitler and National Socialism based on wartime propaganda lies and falsefied history are their weapons.
The effect of their emotional conditioning of Hitler as evil and, by extension, National Socialism as a destructive political philosophy has been to make rational analysis of both virtually impossible for white people. They can then put forth irrational pseudo-arguments in support of their agenda without fear of any effective rational counter-arguments being listened to or understood. And it has worked quite well.
Till now. But finally there is a backlash against this demonization of Hitler and National Socialism and against the One World, race-mixing agenda that they are employed in support of. More and more people are coming to understand that Hitler was not the icon of evil that the One Worlders have portrayed him to be and that National Socialism is the political philosophy best suited to saving Western Civilization and the white race...”
Post #198
“While I agree that obsessing on Hitler and the 3rd Reich is not beneficial that is not what I am advocating for here which is a rational rehabilitation of the historical narrative with respect to Hitler, the 3rd Reich and National Socialism. What I want is for them to be portrayed honestly to the view of the general public.
The link between Hitler the evil icon and racialism and National Socialism is not perpetuated by attempting to set the historical record straight. It is perpetuated by those who use that link as a weapon in their One World, race-mixing agenda. It will do us no good to ignore the reality of that link as a weapon. As long as Hitler is perceived to be evil, Nationalism and racialism in being associated with him will also be seen as evil. The anti-nationalists and anti-racialists will always be able to drag out those conditioned emotional responses to the evil Hitler of their creation whenever nationalists and racialists try to put forth rational arguments for those positions.
Anytime we try to advocate for national sovereignty and racial homogeneity, the antis will point out the link between them and the alleged evil Hitler. They will be able to do this precisely because Hitler was a nationalist and a racialist. That cannot be denied and there is no reason why it should be. They will use the example of Hitler and the holocaust to say, “See, that’s what nationalism and racialism lead to.” And as long as people continue to believe that Hitler was evil and that the holocaust story is true, they will be able to use those false historical ‘facts’ to demonize nationalism and racialism.
There is no escaping this dilemma without rehabilitating Hitler and breaking the link between the evilness of Hitler and the holocaust on the one hand and nationalism and racialism on the other. As long as people believe that the holocaust story is true, they will believe that Hitler was evil. And as long as they believe that Hitler was evil, given that Hitler was a nationalist and a racialist, they will believe that nationalism and racialism are evil since they ‘inevitably’ lead to events such as the holocaust. This false chain of assumptions and bad logic must be broken if we are ever to have any chance to save the white nations of Western Civilization.
If I have not done so to this point, let me make myself clear. I am not in favor of people wearing 3rd Reich military uniforms or waving swastikas in public. I am not calling for full scale adoption of 3rd Reich political policies. Germany of 1933-1945 is in the past and always will be. Excessive nostalgia stifles creative thinking about the present and future. But that does not mean that we must reject everything from the past as useless. We learn from the past’s mistakes and abandon what didn’t work and retain what is still useful to us now.
I am also not, as the anti-revisonists call those who are seeking to rehabilitate Hitler, a Hitler ‘idolator’ or ‘worshiper’. I certainly do think that he was a far better man than he has been portrayed to be in official history books and even better than most of his contemporaries but I do not see him as a saint without flaws. He was a man like other men with vices and virtues. But he was not the evil, satanic demon that popular imagery puts on public display ad nauseum in movies, tv, books and other visual and written media. Rehabilitating Hitler does not mean putting forth a false positive image of him. It means correcting the false negative image and presenting an honest, balanced image.
The need to rehabilitate Hitler is not merely an academic tempest in a teapot to be done simply to set the historical record straight on a par with debating whether Joan of Arc was a saint or a schizophrenic. It is a problem that addresses our present and future in a serious manner. Those with a global agenda of eliminating nations, creating a One World government and reducing humanity to a single, racially mixed amalgam (except for themselves) will continue to use the evil image of Hitler that they created out of false WWII propaganda to demonize those of us who oppose that agenda. Nationalists and racialists will remain marginalized and ineffective as long as they are linked to that false negative image of Hitler.They cannot break that link because it is real but they can change the nature of that link from negative to non-negative.
That requires the rehabilitation of Hitler which is what I am trying to do here.”
Post #205
“White people who hope to prevent the extinction of the white race and the disappearance of the sovereign nations of Western Civiliazation are doomed to failure as long as they continue to believe that by disavowing Hitler they can avoid having the false historical representation of him as an evil man used as weapon against them.
Thay can not. Sixty years of experience should be enough to demonstrate that fact. They have been losing ground steadily during that time and it has been consistently the case that when positive, rational racists have tried to present their position for public approval, their opponents play the evil-Hitler-card. Hitler was evil therefore racism is evil. This shibboleth has been employed over and over to demonize those who would resist the extinction of the white race.
The same is the case with nationalism. Even non-white nationalists are subjected to having the evil-Hitler-card played on them. Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad are the most recent victims. Kaddahafi, Slobodan Milosevic and numerous others have been demonized by simply being branded with this powerful negative epithet. The leaders of the various nationalist parties in Europe such as Le Pen, Griffin and the Austrian Joerg Haider have been maligned and marginalized to their publics by being compared to Hitler.
My effort to rehabilitate Hitler is not merely from a desire to set the historical record straight (though that is important in itself) but rather from a recognition that preventing the extinction of the white race and the dissolution of Western Civilization require it. If the white race and Western Civilization could be saved without rehabilitating Hitler, the importance of doing so would only be a matter of intellectual integrity in the telling of history.
But that is not the case. That effort is important precisely because it is necessary to achieve our goals. Hiding under the blankets and pretending that we have no connection to Hitler is naive. Our opponents will always, as they have for the last sixty years, pull the blankets off and hurl the accusation of evil Hitlerism at us any time we openly advocate for our positions. It is the positions on race and nationalism that they want to discredit. It just so happens that they have found the evil-Hitler-card to be the most effective means to that end.
The only chance that we have is to take that weapon out of their hands. The only way to do that is to understand that the holocaust story is a lie and that Hitler was not the evil demon that he is portrayed as being. When Hitler’s historical reputation is rehabilitated, and not until then, we can begin to resist our opponents in the struggle for our race and culture without having to face the currently dominating rhetorical weapons in their arsenal...the holocaust lie and its attendant evil Hitlerism.
The emotional conditioning that has been instilled in the vast majority of people which produces feelings of repulsion at the sight of images of Hitler and of written falsehoods about the evil deeds of Hitler and the German people must be overcome if a rational analysis of the historical record is to be made. An honest telling of the events of 1933-1945 is unavoidably necessary if we are to win the struggle for our race and our nations.”
Post #222
“If I understand you correctly here, you are saying that people without sufficient background knowledge about Hitler and the holocaust would find themselves bested in debates with the true believers. That is probably true and would be ill advised. But that is not what I have been advocating for here. I am not even trying to convince people that Hitler was “good” (a very complicated word) or that the holocaust story is false (which I believe it to be).
My purpose here has been quite simple and I had hoped clear. What I would like for people to take away from this thread is an awareness of the fact that what they believe to be true about Hitler, the 3rd Reich, the German people and the holocaust story is the result of emotional conditioning generated by pairing negative images of Hitler and other German scenes with WWII propaganda which, rightly or wrongly, was put forth to create the kind of fanaticism and hysteria that wartime leaders feel that they need to instill in their people in order to prosecute a war.
That war is over but the political agenda that it was the extension of is not over. What is needed now is for people to understand what was done to them that has caused them to continue to hold beliefs that are not based on a rational analysis of the historical record. What I am hoping for is that people can see that Hitler was not the evil demon that he has been portrayed as and suppress their emotional responses sufficiently to finally engage in that rational analysis and see that Hitler was a better man than they believe him to be. Then they can look at the war and the propaganda lies that grew into the false holocaust story without the emotional interference that is currently the case for most people. Then they can begin to acquire the background knowledge that they need to debate the true believers successfully.
When people can do that, I am confident that they will see Hitler and the holocaust story in a different way. An honest way. Hitler was not an evil man and the holocaust story is not true.”
Posted by Burrhus on Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 10:00 PM | #
Alex,
In the West, revolutions are metapolitical and concern the sudden and absolute sweeping away of one political system by another - with, obviously, the same change in their respective philosophies and power elites.
Revolution without philosophical change is the methodology of the Third World kleptocrat. In our civilisation, an over-arching philosophy is the foundation of revolutionary activism, and works in exactly the same way that a battle plan, being a design for victory, allows an army to commit its forces.
Your analysis is Judeo-centric. So, naturally enough, you have no use for battlefield-wide plans. That shows in your dedication to NS as the plan which enabled its soldiery to fight the Jews and “actually beat them”, while at the same time cleaving to the idea that today “it’s a technical matter.”
This is inconsistent. When I try to make sense of it, all I can get is that you already accept:-
1) NS was a functioning revolutionary philosophy in 1933, ergo the sweeping away of Weimar and Jewish influence was not simply “a technical matter.”
2) NS is not required to sweep away advanced liberalism and Jewish influence today, but a “technical” change in white empowerment will suffice.
Well, contrast that with my position:-
1) NS addressed the condition of Germany and the German people after 1918. A similar reification of “the spiritual race”, in my view, cannot grow in our postmodern soil. We are too cynical, too knowing, too prosperous, too secure, too materialistic, too unserious, too rootless to march under the banner of race, and that will not quickly change.
2) We require a comparable philosophical model, but one that addresses the condition of the West and our people today.
I think you may be attacking the issue the wrong way around. Instead of saying, “I don’t need a philosophy to do what I’ve got to do” you should be saying, “I’m not convinced that a “light” philosophy will prove effective against Jewish power and influence.”
That’s a fair statement, and one that Scimitar and I should be made to address. You, meanwhile, should accept that philosophy is indispensible, and join us in the search for a model that could function at all levels.
Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 10:12 PM | #
And he came down in favor of the jews. I can only chuckle.
Yes, he did. The most amusing part about it though is that inclusion of the Jews at Amren (which had always been Taylor’s policy) wasn’t good enough for Auster, Hart, Jobling, et al. They sent Taylor an angry letter demanding that he 1.) endorse the Holocaust theory and 2.) denounce and exclude the anti-semites like Duke, or else. When he failed to do so, The Realist/Ian Jobling broke with him and created The Inverted World website. Most of the Amren Jews seem to have followed him over there. The entire purpose of Inverted World is to refute the so-called “theology of Jewish evil” theory and create a completely kosher version of race realism serviceable to Jewish interests.
Unwittingly, The Realist, Auster, Hart and so forth ended up making your point: even the “pro-white” Jews cannot be trusted with positions of responsibility in racialist organizations. After the confrontation with Duke, the Amren Jews — flushed with anger — revealed their disguised intentions. When Jewish and Gentile interests conflict, Jews and philo-semites will always put the former above the latter. For years, Amren had been the paradigm example of Jewish/Gentile cooperation in the rehabilitaiton of racialism. I myself had been an advocate of the inclusion of individual pro-white Jews. That experience forced me to re-evaluate my previous beliefs.
What would have happened if Jared Taylor had died in a car accident in late 2005? If Ian Jobling and the Jews around him had captured control of Amren, they would have quickly moved to transform it into what Inverted World is today; little more than an apologetics resource for the Jewish role in the demonization of racialism. American Renaissance would have become little more than a more racist version of National Review. They demanded that Taylor break with his traditional policy of ignoring the Jewish Question, Holocaust, WW2 and other issues that distract from his focus. Unfortunately, Taylor doesn’t seem to have learned much from the experience, but at least Amren is now more judenrein than it has been in as long as I can remember.
Another example: I did an interview with Nicholas Stix, a jew, who was writing this month’s American Renaissance cover story on the ‘Knoxville Horror.’ He deliberately failed to see my connection between jews and integration, without which policy Channon and Chris would still be alive. I don’t know precisely what AmRen is, but I do know that it won’t get us where we need to go.
Posted by Alex Linder on Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 11:00 PM | #
GW, you’re trying valiantly but unsuccessfully to make some simple complex.
Germany for Germans?
America for Americans.
That’s all it is. The main point is that Whites control White space and White terrority. White men already show they want this in their behavior. They move, almost always, to areas Whiter than those they leave.
The challenge is not to develop a philosophy, we already have that, the challenge is to win power. Winning power is a technical question, and it behooves us to search history to find the closest parallels we can to our circumstances. While there are many differences between America/Europe 2007 and Germany 1933, there are remarkable similarities too. Principal among which is that jews in both instances were controlling the press and pushing the same anti-White agenda. The nazis beat the jews, not on the world scale, they lost, but on the national scale. They did it by a combination of violence and organizing and agitprop. We can learn from them.
Anyone honest, normal man whose mind is truly open, will study our material for a few hours and draw the same conclusions we do. The problem is not coming up with some remarkable philosophy, it’s neutralizing the jews and tools who oppress us, and prevent us from doing what we do naturally.
We don’t need philosophy to tell us we prefer to live among our own kind, by our own ways. We need the power to bring that about.
The System, in your country as mine, is built on the denial of White racial identification. That, along with the demonization of the nazis as the worst-Whites-ever are strong indications that at all costs our enemy must bar us from the one grouping that can threaten him - racial. That’s why however much the judeo-left hates gun rights, Southrons, Constitutionalists, it lets them vent. But it draws the line at Nazis and Whites because they have hit on the key to defeating them.
Lenin said politics is who does what to whom. You can say the jews had a “philosophy” that swept away the Czar but I say it was just a gang of jewish crooks. Of course they spouted some ideology, and it did sway a few non-jews, but ultimately it was just subspecies doing battle. You may think Whites are different from Africans but they’re not. Politics draws the vilest scum in the land and always will, but at least if the ruling scum is White, ordinary Whites can live and flourish.
Most men are not philosophers and do not live by ideas or abstractions. They simply say, Tell me what to believe and I’ll believe it. We at MR and VNN are trying to reach intelligent folks. We explain why things have gone wrong and how to put them right. I have always advocated the correct approach:
- utter demonization of jews at the #1 and System setter-upper
- utter demonization of conservatives as cowards, cooptees, losers and all-around fake opposition
- NOTHING GOES RIGHT UNTIL WE GO WHITE
If you want philosophy deeper than a slogan, then you’re not in politics you’re in philosophy. To get any deeper is to get into pointless and ultimately meaningless debates about eugenics and the day-to-day working of the System after the revolution. Personally, I favor libertarianism inside the steel cage of immediate death for anyone who damages the racial body to make private profits.
Our debates are rather like trying to farm in Holland when we haven’t finished, have barely begun, building the dyke.
We are White. Our enemy is the jew. We must vanquish him. How do we do that?
That’s where we are now.
Posted by Alex Linder on Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 11:20 PM | #
Rethinking WWII is a bridge too far for most Englishmen.They like most Americans have little else to be proud of, since our respective societies have been in freefall since 1945.
Racialism and Americanism were synonymous for over three hundred years. No other country in the world has such a long, distinguished, and rich tradition of racialism as the United States. Americans have little else to be proud of? Surely you jest. Nazi Germany’s brief experiment with racialism (1933-1945) was never as systematic and elaborate as that of the Jim Crow South. The Nuremberg Laws of the Third Reich were modeled on the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Hitler plagiarized Madison Grant and Henry Ford in Mein Kampf. His own understanding of race owed much to Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race and Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Even his Eastern policy was clearly inspired by Grant’s The Conquest of a Continent and the American race wars against the Indians.
Racialism and Nordicism were American movements long before they crossed the Atlantic and took root in Europe. From 1790 to 1952, “whiteness” was a criterion of American naturalization law. Eugenics, also. The State of Indiana was the first polity in the world to pass eugenic sterilization legislation. Thirty-three American states had already passed sterilization laws before Hitler came to power in 1933. The U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned eugenics in Buck v. Bell in 1927. During the early twentieth century, the international eugenics movement was dominated by Americans. Even before Galton coined the term “eugenics” in the nineteenth century, Americans had been practicing it under a different name ("stirpiculture") in the utopian communes that sprung up during the Jacksonian reform movement. In fact, one of the giants of international eugenics movement, Harry Laughlin, who was instrumental in spreading the movement to Germany, is from Alex’s hometown of Kirksville, MO and is buried in Highland Park Cemetery there.
The ideal of a White America racially cleansed of Negroes and Indians owes nothing to National Socialism. It has at least a three hundred year old lineage in North America, and was especially popular in the Upper and Border South: anti-miscegenation laws from the 1660s forward, Indian Removal in the Southeast, the racialization of American naturalization law, the Virginia colonization movement of the 1790s, Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, the American Colonization Society and Liberia, the racial exclusion of black immigrants under Jefferson in 1807, Lincoln’s emancipation scheme, Midwestern free-soilism, the Wilmot Proviso which was known as the “White Man’s Resolution” (keeping blacks out of the territories), relocation of the Indians to reservations in the late ninteenth century, the development of the “one drop rule” in Jim Crow Virginia.
To my knowledge, the Confederacy was the first nation in the history of the world to be explicitly founded on racial principles. In the aftermath of the American Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan waged a terrorist war against racial integration, which the U.S. federal government responded to with the Force Act of 1871. Reconstruction was ultimately defeated, Negroes were stripped of their newly acquired rights, and the Jim Crow system was consolidated in later decades. In South Carolina, the enemies of Reconstruction even called themselves the “Red Shirts” and held torchlight parades at night. The parallels to Italian fascism are striking:
“The Red Shirts of South Carolina were the supporters of Wade Hampton in the South Carolina gubernatorial election of 1876 and the gubernatorial election of 1878. They came to symbolize a revived Southern Nationalism and the redemption of the state from Radical Republican rule during Reconstruction. . . . Donning a red shirt was a source of pride for the white community of South Carolina. The women worked zealously to weave red flannel shirts and other garments of red; it even became fashionable for women to wear red ribbons in their hair or about their waists. For young men, to wear a red shirt was to come of age and compensate for their inability to contribute to the Southern cause of the Civil War.
Southern racialism persisted for over a generation after the Third Reich and was only crushed in the end by force. The Civil Rights Movement was vigorously opposed here. Virtually the entire Southern delegation to the U.S. Congress voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. There was nothing like Little Rock, Oxford, Birmingham, or Selma in countries like Norway, Sweden, or Ireland. MLK was even assassinated for his efforts on behalf of civil rights reform. Even today, white Southerners have the strongest sense of white racial consciousness of any European population in the world; my home state of Alabama even voted against repealing segregationist language in our state constitution in 2004.
Thus, I don’t see what I have to be ashamed of, nor do I have any reason to dip from the Nazi well. I was fortunate enough to be brought up as a racialist in the American Deep South. I’m actually quite proud of the American racialist tradition. It’s not our fault Hitler declared war on the United States or lost the Second World War. He is to blame for making so many enemies and acting on impulse against even his own better judgement.
Oh Alex, maybe you are right and folks like Scimmy and me just complicate every damned thing we contact. But we have this idea, you see, that the king of all ideas, the one that rules over you and me and the boys in Knoxville, Tenesee, this idea conditions everything that happens in the world.
Now, if we are wrong that means that, say, the vivyfying elements of white American life in 1964 can be brought right back today just by removing Jewish interference, and will not need to be set in a supporting ideology to be stable.
Well, did the NS theorists think that? Was NS simply a plan for removing Jews? Because if it wasn’t simply a plan for removing Jews that means that its intellectuals didn’t agree with what you are saying today but, on the contrary, agreed with Scimmy and me.
You have to make your mind up whether you are narrowly interested in NS because that’s how to deal with Jewish ethnic aggression or whether you are interested in the wider ideas and ambitions that NS harboured. If it’s the former - and you are telling me now that it is - then why study NS at all? Why not study Stalinism, because Joe dealt with his Jews in a highly effective manner? And then there have been something like 250 other “events” in the relationship of Jew and Gentile over the past two thousand years. What’s wrong with them? What’s so special about NS?
What’s special about NS, of course, is that it was a revolutionary system that aimed to lift Germans out of the corruptions of Weimar, out of the humiliation of Versailles, out of horrors of hyper-inflation, mass unemployment and starvation, and it succeeded. Incredibly well.
Are you telling me that doesn’t matter to us today?
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 12:23 AM | #
Off-Topic:
Sorry for the interruption. This being the current top post, it seems the place to put my note.
I recently swapped out my ancient monitor for an LCD monitor. It likes to display at its native resolution (1440 x 900 or thereabouts) and at this size my straining eyes just can’t make out MR at its favored font sizes. The trouble is, MR instantly goes all pear-shaped the moment one messes with Firefox’s font sizes. Just open MR in FF and click CTRL and + or - to see what I mean.
Site authors are no doubt busy folks but I suggest a bit of testing on this matter.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 12:27 AM | #
Brilliant post, GW.
I agree with the need for philosophy and the fact that at the present junction, one can really only discuss.
The vehicle which brought liberalism/marxism/PC to the masses was television. I think our vehicle, not in the sense of ‘medium’ but in the sense of ‘catalyst’- will be crisis, which causes an increased casting-about for new truths in the minds of people now contented.
As a young person, one implicitly understands that something horrible underlies our concept of ‘race’. It is like a forbidding corner, something is not quite right. People avoid the topic, like people walking hurredly past a graveyard. No one knows what to say about it. There is the feeling of covering something up, something lurking beneath the surface. threatening to tear everything up if it is let out of the box.
This compounds with genuine terror at realizing that this dark-spot on our conceptual landscape is somehow driving our destruction. And the fear of that, growing larger, finally pushes one to explore the dark-spot, consequences be damned. Its frightening for a child to realize that adults are lying about something ‘in good faith’, one sees one’s honest parents saying what they seem to know is wrong.
And so I think more people will be trying to untie this Gordian conceptual knot, and here is a website with step-by-step instructions on how to do it. Maybe these truths will spread like wildfire one day- who knows. I know people will have need of them, if they want to survive the future.
As regards the English light model, it’s the only way to go that can gently recruit people of tame sensibility-- i.e. about 50% of white citizenry. Like I said in another post, the German Heavy Model was too heavy for Germany. It stirred up so much plebeian self-pride and self-sacrifice that it blurred decision making, most of all in Adolf Hitlers own brain.
The idea was to put all of one’s ferocity behind an unnuanced approach - well, nuance matters more than fury in alot of situations.
By the way- winning everyone to the English Light Model is only the beginning of the long struggle. Once sides are drawn, the aliens, who are endlessly emboldened by years of preying on weakness, are sure to press their advantage and commit atrocities against us. These atrocities, coming in time of crisis, could make the philosophy of the English Light Model slowly morph, into something that might remind one of the good old, bad old days of the Horribly Cruel And Black-Hearted Norman Model (HCBHNM).
All things have to proceed in due course, though. A commitment to the ELM doesn’t preclude future changes in outlook, is all I’m trying to say.
Posted by PF on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 12:33 AM | #
Scimitar- what a strong post about the American south! I never knew that stuff, or rather knew it only faintly. Thanks!
Posted by PF on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 12:48 AM | #
Off-Topic:
SVIGOR - Try changing your font size from the drop down menu buddy. I have mine set to a sans serif at 16 and it looks fine!
SCIMITAR
During the early twentieth century, the international eugenics movement was dominated by Americans.
Not to knock your post because I agree with the general thrust, but correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t Emma Goldman and a bunch of other leftists committed to the idea of eugenics as well Scimitar?
We can point awakening Whites to specialists in real history, as Irving calls it, but my point was simply that we should study how the nazis fought the jews since, unlike conservatives, they actually beat them.
Granted, I can see your point about attacking the Jews as Jews, not as “neocons,” “liberals,” “communists,” “neocons” or whatever other ideological mask they happen to be wearing at any givne moment. If “Jew” carried the same negative connotation that “neocon” does today, we would be well on our way to victory. Personally, I despise American style conservatism as much as you do. I’m not arguing in favor of attacking broad abstractions like “the left.”
Americans mouth the cliches of liberalism, out of fear as much as anything, but their behavior shows they prefer to live around fellow Whites. It’s not really a philosophical matter, in my opinion, it’s a technical matter.
This is the key issue where we disagree. It is absolutely true that ordinary Americans lack anything resembling a theoretical understanding of liberalism. But that isn’t what GW and myself are arguing here. Liberalism really is embedded in their sense of identity and behavior. They truly believe all that cant about “freedom,” “tolerance,” “equality,” “non-discrimination” and so forth. Ordinary Americans will argue the point with you, passionately.
You note that housing patterns don’t reflect this reality, which is entirely true, but double consciousness enables Americans to overcome this apparent inconsistency in their beliefs. Indeed, explicit racialism and ideological liberalism were able to co-exist for almost 150 years in the United States. Look at Jefferson, Emerson, or Lincoln; powerful minds, all. They were self-conscious racists while simultaneously being political liberals. The subtle, unconscious racism that exists amongst white Americans today is even easier to reconcile their commitment to liberal political principles.
The enemy has power. This power is exercised through the government, the academy, and the mass media.
Absolutely true. But why is that? Who let the Jews into the United States in the first place? Why were they given American citizenship? Why were they allowed to so easily accumulate influence in the mass media? Why were they allowed to infiltrate our universities? The Jewish Question reduces ultimately back to liberalism. Liberalism paralyzes the ability of whites to think in terms of groups as opposed to purely autonomous individuals. It licenses the Jewish takeover of our social institutions in the name of “freedom, equality, and tolerance.”
If that power is overcome, if we appear even anywhere near being a credible takeover threat, plenty of ostensible liberals will join us. The people are an animal, and they are driven by fear tropisms, not philosophy. We can’t reward our friends or punish our enemies, at the moment. The judeo-System can.
There is a lot of truth in this. Much of the lip service given to anti-racism really is due to status concerns. Still, I think you are too quick to discount the power that liberalism holds over the American imagination. Iran, Syria, China, North Korea and so forth don’t have this problem. Neither did pre-modern Europe which confined Jews to the ghetto. The Germans of the 1930s were able to shrug off the Jews because their culture had yet to be eviscerated and atomized by liberalism.
Not to knock your post because I agree with the general thrust, but correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t Emma Goldman and a bunch of other leftists committed to the idea of eugenics as well Scimitar?
Sure. There were Jews who supported eugenics before WW2, especially in Germany. The international eugenics movement was dominated by Americans though until the 1930s.
Sure. There were Jews who supported eugenics before WW2, especially in Germany. The international eugenics movement was dominated by Americans though until the 1930s.
I was trying to ask you if the Americans that dominated the movement were leftist…
Even the eugenics movement can be reconciled with liberalism and in fact plays a role in a couple of negative utopias I can think of.
Well, did the NS theorists think that? Was NS simply a plan for removing Jews? Because if it wasn’t simply a plan for removing Jews that means that its intellectuals didn’t agree with what you are saying today but, on the contrary, agreed with Scimmy and me.
True, but, I never called myself an NS, you did. In fact, I would guess that you are very likely more NS than I am. I belong to the old-style American school. I want people fk off and leave me alone. I don’t want to be dragooned into state service in any form. At the same time, I recognize the need for absolute dictatorship on matters of race. Below that, we can argue. Without that, arguments don’t matter.
It’s not easy to determine what precisely NS was and what the nazis actually did. I read Lothrop Stoddard’s “Into the Darkness” recently and learned a great deal. In fact, one of the most interesting things about that book is just that - how little jews are talked about, almost not at all. The nazis had programs for every group and sector. These were successful to reasonable degree, as far as I can see. I don’t think one size fits all, though. I’ve studied in Germany, and Germany really is more like an extended racial family than America. I don’t think what worked in Germany can be simply copied in America. What I do think is pertinent is the ways the nazis dealt with the press and the jews. Of course, that’s my own area here in the states. I am positive that calling jews jews is the only way to go. You want to get into discussions of what’s clever or some other adjective but there is really is no other way. There is no clever way to beat the jews, it will take exactly what it appears: a great number of determined, angry men willing to kill and die. That’s where we’re headed.
You have to make your mind up whether you are narrowly interested in NS because that’s how to deal with Jewish ethnic aggression or whether you are interested in the wider ideas and ambitions that NS harboured.
No, I don’t. I can borrow what works, and ignore what doesn’t. I want a racial dictatorship combined with comparative freedom. I don’t want national health care, bans on smoking, endless health advice and morals crusading. What I do want is a nation controlled by normal White men.
It’s possible that someone can pick up the dropped NS thread and build an even better, more successful and long-lasting racial state, but I’ll leave that to others. I just want to get rid of the people who are killing us and covering it up.
If it’s the former - and you are telling me now that it is - then why study NS at all? Why not study Stalinism, because Joe dealt with his Jews in a highly effective manner?
The jews were a privileged class in the USSR before, during, and after Stalin.
And then there have been something like 250 other “events” in the relationship of Jew and Gentile over the past two thousand years. What’s wrong with them? What’s so special about NS?
Nothing’s necessarily wrong with them, and we draw from them what we can. But the nazis are much closer to us in time. The mass media existed and were controlled by jews. Somehow they took these away from the jews. That’s the first factor. Second factor is, as you’ve said, that NS was about Germany even more than it was about her enemy, the jew, even though that enemy is really what crystallized NS. Really, I don’t even know how philosophical NS even is. It’s a number of different programs, perhaps linked by their putting the racial state first. Maybe NS or some variant was necessary under the conditions. It’s hard to say. In peacetime, I would not want as tight state control as the nazis had over the Germans.
Are you telling me that doesn’t matter to us today?
Of course it does. Nothing’s either/or, we find what fits our needs or can be adapted to our circumstances, whether it comes from NS Germany or anywhere else.
Posted by Alex Linder on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 02:03 AM | #
What would have happened if Jared Taylor had died in a car accident in late 2005? If Ian Jobling and the Jews around him had captured control of Amren, they would have quickly moved to transform it into what Inverted World is today
Posted by Scimitar on Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 10:35 PM | #
That’s the thing: if AmRen were set up by jews as a front group, how would it differ from what we see at AmRen today?
Posted by Alex Linder on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 02:08 AM | #
Burrhus,
I can’t say that I agree with your assessment. My response to accusations of Nazism is simply to tell the truth: I’m not a National Socialist and personally have little interest in the Third Reich, or twentieth century European history generally. Ordinary Americans aren’t exactly the smartest people in the world, but even they are capable of recognizing that “racism” and “Nazism” are not coterminous. Clearly, Americans had been “racists” for centuries before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler: the international slave trade, Indian Wars, the Confederacy, the Klan, Jim Crow, etc. The U.S. fought the Second World War with a segregated army. The issue in that war was Hitler’s declaration of war on the United States. Otherwise, most Americans were content to let the Nazis run wild in Europe, and were generally unconcerned about the Jewish plight under Hitler; even to the point of turning their backs on Jewish refugees.
Fortunately, Americans are perhaps the most self-absorbed people in the world. They pay little attention to what goes on outside the United States and have only a marginally greater interest in their own history. How many Americans do you think are capable of locating Poland or Iraq on a map of the world? I don’t share your view that Americans are so fascinated with Hitler and the Holocaust that our circumstances will never change until the revisionist cause triumphs, especially the younger generation. While that is largely true of the Jewish community, I don’t think the white majority shares their concerns. In my experience, simply stating that I am not a Nazi usually suffices to deflect such attacks.
The problem isn’t the poor reputation of Nazism so much at is “racism.” Rehabilitating the image of the Third Reich won’t necessarily defang this concept either. OTOH, if “racism” is defused as a rhetorical hand grenade, everything demonized under its banner will benefit. In my view, dredging up Hitler and the Third Reich is a gross mistake. It is a constant distraction from more practical concerns like expanding our media presence, fundraising, getting ourselves organized, and putting our own spin on more pressing matters before the public eye, say, the Knoxville Massacre or the current debate in the Senate over amnesty for illegal aliens. By returning constantly to the theme of Hitler, you unnecessarily remind Americans of what they dislike most about racism. It is better to let sleeping dogs lie. Finally, I simply don’t know enough about the subject to say much about it. My energies are more productive spent elsewhere.
The idea was to put all of one’s ferocity behind an unnuanced approach - well, nuance matters more than fury in alot of situations.
Your assumption is that nazis/Germans are less nuanced and sophistcated than English but that is the opposite of the case. One reason the nazis lost is they were unable to conceive just how vicious and barbaric the British leadership actually were. I will guarantee you that the average German is of higher moral character than the average Briton. Maybe thems fightin’ words around here, but I believe that anybody who has met Germans and British will draw the same conclusion.
My point is not to attack Britain but to point out that Anglo countries like the U.S. assume that Britain is first and the other European countries trail it in civilization, etc., but that is not the case.
Posted by Alex Linder on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 02:15 AM | #
If “Jew” carried the same negative connotation that “neocon” does today, we would be well on our way to victory.
It does, it’s just that people won’t use it. That is one thing VNN has done harder and faster than anybody since we began in 2000. We call jews jews. That alone has greater effect than any essay by Sam Francis or any of the other between-two-stoolers. The only real education the mass public needs is drawing the connection between the Recognized Problem (crime, mexinvasion, war-in-iraq) and the Jewish Cause.
Posted by Alex Linder on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 02:19 AM | #
This is the key issue where we disagree. It is absolutely true that ordinary Americans lack anything resembling a theoretical understanding of liberalism. But that isn’t what GW and myself are arguing here. Liberalism really is embedded in their sense of identity and behavior. They truly believe all that cant about “freedom,” “tolerance,” “equality,” “non-discrimination” and so forth. Ordinary Americans will argue the point with you, passionately.
Yes, many of them do believe these things. They use the phrases put in their mouths.
You note that housing patterns don’t reflect this reality, which is entirely true, but double consciousness enables Americans to overcome this apparent inconsistency in their beliefs. Indeed, explicit racialism and ideological liberalism were able to co-exist for almost 150 years in the United States. Look at Jefferson, Emerson, or Lincoln; powerful minds, all. They were self-conscious racists while simultaneously being political liberals. The subtle, unconscious racism that exists amongst white Americans today is even easier to reconcile their commitment to liberal political principles.
Liberalism is like christianity, it can exist with or without racism. If the system is liberal enough, as America was up until 1910 or so, then it’s hard to see interlopers as the problem, since all you have to do is use your liberal freedoms to exclude them.
You’ll notice that very, very shortly after individuals-of-jew arrived on these shores, Americans began to note their nasty characterististics and politick against them, resulting in the 1924 act. Before them, there were not that many jews, and America needed people, and the federal government was so small that any real problem, political or otherwise, could be dealt with locally. That all changed in the 20th century with the rise of technology and mass media.
Absolutely true. But why is that? Who let the Jews into the United States in the first place? Why were they given American citizenship? Why were they allowed to so easily accumulate influence in the mass media? Why were they allowed to infiltrate our universities? The Jewish Question reduces ultimately back to liberalism. Liberalism paralyzes the ability of whites to think in terms of groups as opposed to purely autonomous individuals. It licenses the Jewish takeover of our social institutions in the name of “freedom, equality, and tolerance.”
Wrong. You just said Jefferson was a political liberal and a racist. So liberalism can go either way. The evidence of 1924 shows that liberals could recognize all kinds of groups, and favor some over others, and not just in immigration but for eugenics purposes.
What happened was that there were some jews in the new world from the start. We needed people to populate the continent; those born here didn’t know that much about jews, and in any case, they were weird and stuck to themselves and there was plenty of room to escape had they become oppressive, which they couldn’t really be under the circumstances. Things changed over the next 200 years, and all of a sudden mass control technology came into being and the jews seized on it immediately. They were resisted successfully via the ‘24 immigration act, but that was pretty much a lone triumph. Their teamwork allowed them to takeover before the rest of the nation had fully caught on. There’s also the fact that the U.S. was begun by English settlers, and presumably they inherited the biases of the old country, where jews had long been readmitted after being expelled. So they were not anti-jew in principle. It would have been nice if the founders had foreseen what would happen by admitting jews, but they didn’t. We need have no illusions. Jews will use our White individualism to take us out as a team.
Much of the lip service given to anti-racism really is due to status concerns. Still, I think you are too quick to discount the power that liberalism holds over the American imagination.
That liberalism is a mile wide and 1/4” deep. You get control of tv, everyone you know will be a racist in one day. All you have to do is have outraged announcers voicing over nigger riots, and then talking-head panels explaining the gunpoint-integration backstory. Then hostile interviews with alien-weird rabbis. Bake at 350 for 1.5 hours and presto, we’re back in the saddle.
Yeah, they believe in equality and tolerance in the same way that Canny Sammy believed in anti-anti-semitism. Do you really think any White American would put his glutecakes on the line to get between us and the negroes any more than Canny would get between us and the jews?
Iran, Syria, China, North Korea and so forth don’t have this problem. Neither did pre-modern Europe which confined Jews to the ghetto. The Germans of the 1930s were able to shrug off the Jews because their culture had yet to be eviscerated and atomized by liberalism.
Shooting commie jews and throwing them in canals helped too.
I’m not disputing there’s more than one way to skin the Katz, I’m saying that for us, America 2007, the nazi resistance to and eventual overpowering of the jews has some applicability.
Posted by Alex Linder on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 02:40 AM | #
I belong to the old-style American school. I want people fk off and leave me alone. I don’t want to be dragooned into state service in any form. At the same time, I recognize the need for absolute dictatorship on matters of race. Below that, we can argue. Without that, arguments don’t matter.
In other words, you are something of a libertarian, which is one of the many faces of liberalism. What GW is trying to explain to you is how this worldview becomes corrosive of racial consciousness over time. A good example of this would be the anti-miscegenation laws. In 1843, Massachusetts became the first American state to repeal its anti-miscegenation law. To my knowledge, Jewish influence had nothing to do with this; the Massachusetts state legislature simply decided that marriage restriction in the name of racial preservation was incompatible with their commitment to natural rights and individual liberty.
By 1900, virtually every state in the American North had passed post-1964 style civil rights legislation which banned racial discrimination in education, housing, employment, and public accomodations. The Reconstruction amendments and civil rights acts — which granted blacks citizenship and full equality with whites — are an even more poignant reminder of the sort of destruction whites deranged by liberalism can inflict on their civilization. Only the Western and Southern states held out against this trend, at least until the 1960s. Indians were granted U.S. citizenship by special acts of Congress in 1887, 1901, and 1924.
In other words, you are something of a libertarian, which is one of the many faces of liberalism.
Call it what you want, doesn’t matter. I want the state out of most of my life; I also want the state to destroy anybody who messes with the racial basis of the nation.
Posted by Alex Linder on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 03:05 AM | #
Liberalism affects a minority of Whites, unfortunately many of these are elites. Liberalism in the hands of whites is not genocidal, but in the hands of the jews who direct it now, it is. If all the anti-discrimination you say were actually in place, there would have been no need for the ‘civil rights’ movement. It wasn’t until jews took over that it became against the law for Whites to protect their communities from blacks.
Posted by Alex Linder on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 03:08 AM | #
Yes, many of them do believe these things. They use the phrases put in their mouths.
That’s something of an understatement. Virtually all white Americans are liberals of some form or another. The entire American political spectrum is subsumed by liberalism. The “conservatives” and “liberals” which are represented by the GOP and Democratic Party respectively are merely liberals who disagree as to whether liberty or equality is the more political value. Libertarians are equally at home within the liberal fold.
Liberalism is like christianity, it can exist with or without racism. If the system is liberal enough, as America was up until 1910 or so, then it’s hard to see interlopers as the problem, since all you have to do is use your liberal freedoms to exclude them.
True. As I noted above, liberalism and racialism can indeed co-exist. The point we are making is that, on a fundamental level, the two are deeply antagonistic worldviews. Such an alliance has inherent tensions and can quickly unravel under stress like any bad marriage. That is exactly what happened during the American Civil War and the Second World War. The unraveling began as early as the American Revolution when the New England states began to pass the first anti-slavery laws. During the 1790s, racial equalitarianism was a standard theme of the abolitionist literature of the time, and again under William Lloyd Garrison after the 1830s.
You’ll notice that very, very shortly after individuals-of-jew arrived on these shores, Americans began to note their nasty characterististics and politick against them, resulting in the 1924 act. Before them, there were not that many jews, and America needed people, and the federal government was so small that any real problem, political or otherwise, could be dealt with locally. That all changed in the 20th century with the rise of technology and mass media.
Indeed, the Jewish presence in the United States was insignificant until the great wave of immigration of 1885-1924. And yes, Jews became involved in radical politics in America almost as soon as they stepped off the boat. There was a definite reaction against them by the American majority. The Jewish quotas in the Ivy League would be another example of this.
But let’s return for a moment to the late nineteenth century. In the aftermath of the Civil War, all the Northern states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. They passed state laws against racial discrimination in employment, education, housing, and public accomodations. At the federal level, the Republican Party rammed through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which gave blacks full citizenship and equal protection under the law. The former Confederate states were dissolved into military districts and racial integration was forced upon them during Reconstruction. How do you explain this?
Wrong. You just said Jefferson was a political liberal and a racist. So liberalism can go either way. The evidence of 1924 shows that liberals could recognize all kinds of groups, and favor some over others, and not just in immigration but for eugenics purposes.
Both Jefferson and Emerson also spent years wrestling with their conscience over the issue. Jefferson, for example, was unable to bring himself to condemn the Haitian Revolution because of his commitment to natural rights. The Immigration Act of 1924 was also passed into law by a coalition of Southerners and Westerners in Congress. That was no coincidence.
Unlike New England and the Midwest, Southerners during the mid-nineteenth century like John C. Calhoun began to rethink the ideology of the American Revolution. They developed a new tradition of illiberal republicanism which carried over into the Confederacy and Jim Crow. Westerners had a much strong sense of racial consciousness as well because of the Indian Wars of the late nineteenth century, which were famously celebrated by TR in his book The Winning of the West.
Things changed over the next 200 years, and all of a sudden mass control technology came into being and the jews seized on it immediately. They were resisted successfully via the ‘24 immigration act, but that was pretty much a lone triumph. Their teamwork allowed them to takeover before the rest of the nation had fully caught on.
It would be more accurate to say that Jews were accepted as white. The Jews were treated as if they were another denomination of Christianity. They were not recognized as a distinct group. Instead, they were admitted as Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, and Russians into the United States. Afterwards, the commitment of Americans to liberalism demanded that the Jews be extended all the rights of other citizens, which they proceeded to take advantage of.
There’s also the fact that the U.S. was begun by English settlers, and presumably they inherited the biases of the old country, where jews had long been readmitted after being expelled. So they were not anti-jew in principle.
Jews were not as readily accepted in England as you seem to believe. It wasn’t until the Jew Bill of 1753 that Jews became eligible to sit in Parliament, and it generated so much opposition amongst the English public that it was repealed the following year. The real culprits here were the Dutch. The Jews first established themselves in the Dutch colony of New Netherlands which was conquered by the English in the Second Anglo-Dutch War. New Amsterdam became New York.
It would have been nice if the founders had foreseen what would happen by admitting jews, but they didn’t. We need have no illusions. Jews will use our White individualism to take us out as a team.
And they couldn’t forsee it because they were blinded and paralyzed by their commitment to liberalism — just as Americans, Englishmen, Canadians, Australians, Frenchmen, and Germans are today.
That liberalism is a mile wide and 1/4” deep.
Liberalism is now the sum of the American national identity. Everything else has been jettisoned — race, ethnicity, religion, culture. As we are constantly reminded, the United States is the first “proposition nation.” We are bound together by nothing other than our commitment to “common principles.” Which highlights the difficulty of our situation: we are asking Americans to abandon what little remains of their national identity.
You get control of tv, everyone you know will be a racist in one day. All you have to do is have outraged announcers voicing over nigger riots, and then talking-head panels explaining the gunpoint-integration backstory. Then hostile interviews with alien-weird rabbis. Bake at 350 for 1.5 hours and presto, we’re back in the saddle.
You will get no argument from me on this point. More specifically, American racial attitudes began to change dramatically after racial stereotypes of blacks started disappearing in the national press after 1937, about a decade and a half before the spread of television.
Yeah, they believe in equality and tolerance in the same way that Canny Sammy believed in anti-anti-semitism. Do you really think any White American would put his glutecakes on the line to get between us and the negroes any more than Canny would get between us and the jews?
Yes, I do. Didn’t you see what happened in Knoxville?
Shooting commie jews and throwing them in canals helped too.
Of course. That’s easy enough to do when you are not convinced that Jews and Communists have inalienable individual rights which must always be respected.
I’m not disputing there’s more than one way to skin the Katz, I’m saying that for us, America 2007, the nazi resistance to and eventual overpowering of the jews has some applicability.
If you are saying we should attack the Jews as Jews, then I am in full agreement with you. I’m simply saying that liberalism has to go as well. Otherwise, we will one day find ourselves right back where we are today.
Call it what you want, doesn’t matter. I want the state out of most of my life; I also want the state to destroy anybody who messes with the racial basis of the nation.
So, you want to eviscerate the state, but on the other hand you want to mobilize it against the Jews and your other racial enemies? Do you see the tension there between a commitment to individual freedom and placing racial limits on that freedom? Ron Paul is good example of liberalism in its more advanced stages:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
Liberalism affects a minority of Whites, unfortunately many of these are elites.
What is your definition of liberalism?
Liberalism in the hands of whites is not genocidal, but in the hands of the jews who direct it now, it is.
Reconstruction shows otherwise.
If all the anti-discrimination you say were actually in place, there would have been no need for the ‘civil rights’ movement. It wasn’t until jews took over that it became against the law for Whites to protect their communities from blacks.
The Civil Rights Movement was about extending the Northern racial status quo to the Jim Crow South. In order to do so, federal civil rights legislation was needed; which was being blocked by the segregationists in Congress.
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/outside_south.htm
^^ Feel free to glance over the Northern anti-discrimination laws yourself. Here are a few examples:
Iowa 1931: Civil rights protection [Statute]
Outlawed racial discrimination. Penalty: Criminal prosecution and damages
Illinois 1896: Barred school segregation [Statute]
Prohibited school officers from excluding children from public schools on the basis of color. Penalty: $5 to $100.
Pennsylvania 1881: Barred school segregation [Statute]
Unlawful for any teacher or school administrator to discriminate against students based on race or color.
Massachusetts 1865: Barred public accommodations segregation [Statute]
Discrimination in any inn, public place of amusement, public carrier, or public meeting prohibited. Penalty: Fine up to $50
Ohio 1887: Barred miscegenation and school segregation [Statute]
Repealed separate school law of 1878 and 1877 law that banned intermarriage.
Washington 1887: Barred anti-miscegenation [Statute]
Repealed anti-miscegenation law.
GW’s position runs against MacDonald’s analysis in his Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. MacDonald frames National Socialism, not unlike the Spanish Inquisition, as a strategy that emphasised in-group altruism against outgroups, in particular Jews.
Most basically, National Socialism aimed at developing a cohesive group. There was an emphasis on the inculcation of selfless behavior and within-group altruism combined with outgroup hostility ( MacDonald 1988a, 298-300). These anti-individualist tendencies can be seen in the Hitler Youth movement ( Koch 1976; Rempel 1989). After 1936, membership was compulsory for children after their tenth birthday. A primary emphasis was to mold children to accept a group strategy of within-group altruism combined with hostility and aggression toward outgroups, particularly Jews. Children were taught an ideology of nationalism, the organic unity of the state, blind faith in Hitler, and antiSemitism. Physical courage, fighting skills, and a warlike mentality were encouraged, but the most important aspect of education was group loyalty: “Faithfulness and loyalty irrespective of the consequences were an article of faith shared among wide sections of Germany’s youth” ( Koch 1976, 119).
According to KMac it essently was a mirror image of Jewish racialism. If GW looked at the instances when Jews were expelled from the host countries, whether in ancient, medieval or modern eras, there will be little evidence of a shift in political philosophy with the possible exception of the Catholic Church in the late Roman empire.
The mutual hostilities between Jews and gentiles in the ancient world involved the “normal” mutual animosity between groups with differing interests ( Parkes 1976, 5; Ruether 1974). As expected in individualist societies, anti-Semitic violence in the ancient world was sporadic and decentralized, resulting from particular situations in particular areas. With the advent of the Christian church, however, antiSemitism became based on a powerful, emotionally compelling ideology and was institutionalized in an organization that aspired to and often possessed a great deal of political power. I propose that the Christian church in late antiquity was in its very essence the embodiment of a powerful anti-Semitic movement that arose because of gentile concern with resource and reproductive competition with Jews.
However, even in that example there appears to be no compelling philosophical shift in Christian doctrine, just the embodiment of a powerful group altruism, vis-a-vis Judaism’s group altruism.
Posted by Desmond Jones on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 05:05 AM | #
The Civil Rights Movement was about extending the Northern racial status quo to the Jim Crow South.
The Northern racial status quo was segregation. The forced bussing in Boston in 1974 met with violent white protest.
Posted by Desmond Jones on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 05:59 AM | #
The Northern racial status quo was segregation. The forced bussing in Boston in 1974 met with violent white protest.
The Midwest and New England had already fully embraced post-1964 style integration by the twentieth century:
Repeals of Anti-Miscegenation Laws: Massachusetts (1843), Rhode Island (1881), Maine (1883), New Mexico (1886), Ohio and Washington (1887).
Bans of Segregation in Education: New York (1894, 1900, 1938, 1948, 1953), Pennsylvania (1881, 1911, 1950), New Jersey (1881, 1903), Connecticut (1933), Rhode Island (1882), Massachusetts (1894), Ohio (1887), Michigan (1871), Indiana (1877, 1949), Illinois (1874, 1896), Minnesota (1877, 1905).
Bans of Segregation in Public Accomodations: New York (1873, 1881, 1895, 1913, 1930), Pennsylvania (1887, 1945), New Jersey (1884, 1898, 1911, 1953), Connecticut (1905, 1949, 1951), Rhode Island (1956), Massachusetts (1865, 1866, 1885, 1893, 1895), Vermont (1957), New Hampshire (1955), Maine (1954), Ohio (1884, 1953), Michigan (1885, 1948), Indiana (1885), Illinois (1885, 1897, 1903, 1911), Wisconsin (1895), Iowa (1884, 1892), Minnesota (1885, 1897, 1899).
Come on brother Scimitar!
The elite’s pronouncements from on high, and the response from the laity are two different things?!
I spent almost a year incarcerated in the brig in Charleston S.C. with a big black man from D.C who remembered the beginning of *forced* school integration…
Let us just say it was not the fondest memory....
Was it really as you are attempting to tell it? Or is your judgment perhaps clouded by your hatred for us carpet-baggin’ northerners? (although… i’m a californian....)
Alex Linder,
I agree with you about the Zionist problem, but look at what you are doing to combat it. You run a blog and forum where trolls and Zionist shills can post deceptive and misleading comments or act as agents provocateur. For instance, I read a comment at your blog where the author, pretending to be anti-Jewish, was expressing relief that at least Jews don’t control the issuance of money in the U.S. or else we would be in deep doo doo. Was this person really this ignorant or was he doing his part to combat serious individuals documenting evidence elsewhere that the Federal Reserve Banks are private Jewish-owned banks and that the Jewish bankers have instituted fractional reserve banking, allowing themselves to generate money out of nothing and lend it to people? In another example, you have people at your forum shifting the blame for 9/11 away from Zionists.
Take a cue from Judicial Index and Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn and present serious arguments to help awaken people to Zionist criminality. Not only do Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn avoid any white supremacist/nationalist stuff, but also they have exposed many prominent white supremacists/nationalists as idiots, liars, blackmailed Zionist puppets or Zionists in disguise.
Your language and presentation at your sites can certainly be improved for greater palatability to the general readership. Concentrate on informing the public in a reasonable manner, and you will do your part to awaken more people.
Posted by J Richards on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 11:08 AM | #
Was it really as you are attempting to tell it? Or is your judgment perhaps clouded by your hatred for us carpet-baggin’ northerners? (although… i’m a californian....)
I don’t hate Northerners at all. In fact, I cited Madison Grant (of New York City) above as an American racialist I admire. Carleton Putnam (of New England) is another one of my personal heroes. Charles Davenport (of Connecticut) as well. I was simply pointing out that the U.S. has always been several nations with respect to race (which is extremely important to keep in mind). The Jim Crow racial regime that prevailed in the South into the 1960s did not exist in the North at the time. The Midwest once had Jim Crow style laws, but dismantled them after the Civil War. The Western states dismantled their race laws between 1945 and 1965.
Don’t get the wrong impression. I wasn’t trying to stir up hatred of Northerners above. My point was simply that whites enamored with liberalism are entirely capable of inflicting no small amount of damage upon their own civilization. See the American experiment with racial equality during Reconstruction. Another good example of this would be Revolutionary France. In 1792, the French National Assembly extended equal rights to all free blacks and mulattos in the French colonies. In 1794, slavery was outlawed and blacks were given equal citizenship with whites. Although this insane policy was later reversed under Napoleon, Jacobinism put down roots in the French Caribbean. The result was the bloody Haitian Revolution and similar uprisings in Martinique and Guadeloupe.
The elite’s pronouncements from on high, and the response from the laity are two different things?!
In the few books I’ve read about this era, or from people in this era, it seems that Abolitionism springs pretty naturally (i.e. without Jewish, without outside influence) from the liberal idealism these people cherished. Not in the South, like Scimitar is saying, though.
Two examples: Ralph Waldo Emerson and Robert Louis Stevenson, two intellectuals of the day.
Emerson seems to be pro-slave and pro-indian:
http://www.amazon.com/Emersons-Antislavery-Writings-Ralph-Emerson/dp/0300059701
I just read a poem by Robert Louis Stevenson, a beautiful peice called Et tu in Arcadia Vixisti, and he mars it with a reference to an Indian bemoaning his loss of territory! Narrated with sympathy.
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/stevenson/stevenson_ind.html
These are two intellectuals, home-sprung, from both sides of the Atlantic, supporting the Other even though they didnt have a clue what he was or anything about him. The one lived in Boston, the other in Scotland.
Posted by PF on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 11:25 AM | #
Emerson is a good example of an American intellectual who struggled with his double-consciousness. Like Jefferson, he was torn between his racialism and his liberal idealism:
Emerson the liberal idealist:
“Man is the most composite of all creatures.... Well, as in the old burning of the Temple at Corinth, by the melting and intermixture of silver and gold and other metals a new compound more precious than any, called Corinthian brass, was formed; so in this continent,--asylum of all nations,--the energy of Irish, Germans, Swedes, Poles, and Cossacks, and all the European tribes,--of the Africans, and of the Polynesians,--will construct a new race, a new religion, a new state, a new literature, which will be as vigorous as the new Europe which came out of the smelting-pot of the Dark Ages, or that which earlier emerged from the Pelasgic and Etruscan barbarism.”
Emerson the racialist:
“It cannot be maintained by any candid person that the African race have ever occupied or do promise ever to occupy any very high place in the human family . . . The Irish cannot; the American Indian cannot; the Chinese cannot. Before the energy of the Caucasian race all other races have quailed and done obeisance.”
“I believe that nobody now regards the maxim “that all men are created equal,” as any thing more than a convenient hypothesis or an extravagant declamation . . . for the reverse is true, - that all men are born unequal . . . The least knowledge of the natural history of man adds another important particular to these: namely, of what class of men he belongs to - European, Moor, Tartar, African? Because Nature has plainly assigned different degrees of intellect to these different races, and the barriers between are insurmountable.”
Linder wrote:
Your assumption is that nazis/Germans are less nuanced and sophistcated than English but that is the opposite of the case. One reason the nazis lost is they were unable to conceive just how vicious and barbaric the British leadership actually were.
Like GW said elsewhere, I prefer a leader who is an aristocrat before he is a populist, or who is an elitist before he is a populist. Some layer of insulation is necessary, some level of cynicism and clear-thinking, and acquaintence with power.
I’m pretty sure Hitler didn’t have these luxuries. I suppose he tried to make up for them with Kadavergehorsam and red-hot passion. How could he give such speeches if he wasnt himself in the grip of a convulsion of nationalist feeling? And how can one think clearly if one is so emotionally driven? “We have to win, if we give everything, we have to win. Win or die.”
As regards the British leadership being vicious and barbaric- in the context of WWII I’m not sure the accusation of being vicious and barbaric makes any sense. “Wolltet ihr den totalen Krieg?!” Hitler once asked a captive audience, to thunderous assent. “Do you want the total war?!”
Posted by PF on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 12:03 PM | #
PF,
In wartime it is the duty as well as the weakness of leaders to live out the spirit of the national struggle. Some would say it is the privilege, too.
Adolf Hitler’s strangely contorted gesturing and magnetic dominance is the same thing as Churchill’s magnificently cold determination and Mussolini’s paper-thin, defiant arrogance. They are attempts, probably unconscious, to incorporate into the person the spirit of the people in wartime. I have no quarrel with any of them for that. It may be that the job description of a good wartime leader requires such, and a Chamberlain, for instance, would utterly fail.
National leadership in peacetime is another issue, of course.
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 12:21 PM | #
In wartime it is the duty as well as the weakness of leaders to live out the spirit of the national struggle. Some would say it is the privilege, too.
Fair enough, but there are a number of ways to conceptualize a conflict and to deal with it emotionally, each of these have different advantages and disadvantages. The way the person deals with it will depend on his upbringing/roots. Its preferable to have someone with a family history of statecraft (Aristocrat, for example Churchill), with some experience of it (Churchill gained this in the Empire), and with some degree of separation from the people, so he can observe all things with a cold eye and think rationally. Hitler was new to power, had no family history, and had himself studied history, it seems, only polemically with regard to racial/Jewish matters. Correct me if I’m wrong. Bringing unnecessary emotion into the game seems amateurish, but I’m not one competent to make that judgement. I just see him making these speeches and think: “Thats a guy about ready to explode with passion. Practically quaking while he speaks. Is that man now going to preside over the destiny of 60 Million people?”
Posted by PF on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 12:58 PM | #
I don’t hate Northerners at all
I know. This medium is horrible for me.
Don’t get the wrong impression. I wasn’t trying to stir up hatred of Northerners above.
I didn’t. I know you don’t hate northerners. I was just musing about how different the “man on the street” (versus the ruling liberal elite) in the north really was from the common people in the south.
My point was simply that whites enamored with liberalism are entirely capable of inflicting no small amount of damage upon their own civilization.
Noted.
GW,
“I wonder what maguire will think.”
I suggest we keep the white working class family I illustrated as the end goal. Since they’re real white people in process of being dispossessed, they’re a practical touchstone for our deliberations now.
It seems to me the outcome of a definitional process should result in something that is;
a) understandable by them,
b) marketable by them afterwards to neighboring peer families (they’re extremely sociable and friendly folks) and
c) ‘works’ for them in the sense of addressing real needs in their lives as they are today, and can be accomplished by means within their grasp. It doesn’t mean they know instantly how to do it all, but it should start with skills and resources within their reach. These needs start with daily bread and extend up to physical security from outside aggression.
“Names don’t really matter.”
This is 100% true. The only exception I see is if the name in question has been so brand polluted it elicits instinctively negative emotional reactions that pre-empt an open minded hearing by those we seek to persuade to our cause. Who here will soon start a pension fund advisory firm called “Enron Pension Fund Advisors LLC”? Or a telecom company called “WorldCom”?
“Nazi” and “national socialist” have acquired that kind of radioactivity. This is so profound they’re even roundly condemned by people still tilting with an identical windmill called “Jim Crow South”.
Here on the west side of the pond ‘Conservative’ has already bifurcated into ‘paleo-conservative’ and ‘neo-conservative’, both strains anti-racial in various degrees. The ‘Paleocons’ are rapidly making ‘Neocon’ synonymous with ‘Nazi War Criminal’ both internationally and across much of the USA’s domestic political spectrum. At the end of this process lies a mutual delegitimation of all ‘Cons’. On the Jew side ‘Neocon’ is just another public facade they change almost as easily (and almost as frequently) as they change underwear.
Less nimbler ‘Paleos’ will be left in possession of a bankrupt entity. Meanwhile the Neos will have long since moved on to seizing the ‘Democratic’ center and also fielding Bloombergs to manipulate top level political processes to their advantage.
FYI, for two decades of my political adulthood I described myself as ‘Conservative’. Disaffection began in the late 1980s and was total by 1998 when I re-registered as ‘Independent’.
I’ve seen ‘Radical Traditionalist’ used with good effect. We certainly want to anchor ourselves to our true origins,
Posted by Scimitar on Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 10:45 PM | #