I wish I had an arresting “what I was doing when the twin towers were hit” story. But the truth is that I had slept through the whole thing. The night before, I had stayed up into the wee hours reading Savitri Devi’s The Lightning and the Sun (I had just found a copy of the unabridged version). I first heard around 3 pm when an Aryan barbarian from Alabama (nobody you would have heard of) called me to ask me what I thought.
“Terrorists hijacked two jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, then the towers collapsed.”
“Yeah, sure . . .” I said, as I flipped on the TV (I still had TV then) and saw the second tower collapsing in slow motion. My first thought, I am ashamed to say, was of the huge Miró tapestry I had once seen in one of the lobbies. Then, with horror, I realized I had been there. This could have happened to me! I thought of the terror of the people in the airplanes and the buildings. For the rest of the afternoon, I was glued to the TV.
That evening, I went to the regular Tuesday evening “hate dinner” in Atlanta. Instead of the usual eight or ten people, there were more than twenty. Quite frankly, there was a good deal of gallows humor and Schadenfreude around the table. One person quipped that at least this would get Chandra Levy off the news.
We had all pretty much concluded that the hijackers were Muslims who had targeted us because of the US government’s slavish subservience to Israel and our domestic Jewish community. There was also a consensus that 9/11 was a superb opportunity to awaken our people on the Jewish domination of American foreign policy and the Jewish question in general.
But the public was pretty much already there. Later in the week, Tom Brokaw reported that NBC and Reuters announced that two-thirds of Americans polled believed that we had been attacked because of America’s close ties with Israel. I wondered how (not if, just how) the establishment would spin this.
The answer was soon to come when the New York Times found a “face” to put on a position held by two-thirds of the American public. They went to West Virginia to the “compound” of “neo-Nazi” Dr. William Pierce, leader of the National Alliance, who was of the opinion that 9/11 took place because of Jewish domination of American foreign policy. The Times, in short, sought to marginalize a mainstream position by linking it to a marginal figure.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not blaming Dr. Pierce for anything, certainly not for representing the opinions of two-thirds of the American people. I blame the whole political mainstream for failing to represent us. Apparently every politician and political commentator knows that pandering to the Jewish minority is always more important than pandering to the American majority.
Still, 9/11 was the occasion for my first attempts at open white advocacy under my own name. And I know that I was not alone. I also know many people whose first racial awakening came from 9/11.
We all had high hopes. I was very encouraged when I learned of the arrest of Israeli spies who were filming the attack on the World Trade Center and celebrating. Clearly they had advance knowledge of the attacks and believed them to be “good for the Jews.” Then I heard that a large Israeli spy network had been arrested, including people who had been shadowing the 9/11 hijackers. There was also the story of a text message sent by Odigo, a text-messaging company in Israel, warning of the attack. Carl Cameron began piecing the Israel connection together for FOX.
But then Jewish power intervened. The spies were released and sent home. Cameron’s investigation was quashed and his stories pulled. And the United States went to war. First in Afghanistan, which was at least connected with Al Qaeda, then with Iraq, which was targeted because of Israeli interests, not American interests. It was child’s play, really, for the Jews to lie and manipulate Americans to spill their blood and treasure for the benefit of Israel. Organized Jewry had already brought the United States into World War I and World War II.
I think that the most reasonable account of 9/11 is the following.
Nineteen Muslims armed with box cutters hijacked four airplanes, crashing two of then into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. The fourth crashed in Pennsylvania for reasons unknown.
The government of Israel had been shadowing the hijackers and clearly had advance knowledge of the attacks. Reliable Israeli agents in the US government may also have had advance knowledge. But no attempt was made to warn the American government to stop the attacks. 9/11 was allowed to happen because the Jews needed a new Lusitania, a new Pearl Harbor, as a pretext to bring America into a new war, or wars, in the Middle East on Israel’s behalf. Iraq, Syria, and Iran were at the top of Israel’s hit list. So far, they have had to settle for Iraq. The war in Afghanistan, from a Jewish perspective, was a mere distraction, although it certainly eases the road to war with Iran.
The conclusion and practical implications could not be clearer: Israel is not our friend. American Jews, who if forced to choose between serving US interests or Israeli interests, would overwhelmingly choose Israel, are not our friends either. America’s Jewish community is the reason why US foreign policy is conducted for Israeli not American interests. If America is to prevent another 9/11, we must break the power of American Jewry over our political system. But that will not be possible without addressing Jewish power in the media, the economy, academia, and all realms of culture. Jews need to be excluded from all channels of power and influence in our society. And the only practical way to accomplish that is to expel them as a community from the US. And naturally we should send back our Muslims while we are at it.
On 9/12, some two-thirds of the American public already agreed with part of that message, and they certainly would have been willing to hear more. But White Nationalists did not have the money, the talent, the infrastructure, or the organizational maturity necessary to make our message competitive with the Jewish angle. Our people had the ears to hear, but we could not get our message out.
Ten years later, we are in essentially the same position. Yes, there are new webzines, new publishers, and new podcasts. But there have also been considerable losses. William Pierce died and the National Alliance is a shadow of its former self. National Vanguard has collapsed; its excellent webzine is gone; and Kevin Strom has been essentially silenced. American Renaissance has been pretty much driven out of the conference business. And so forth.
It has been worse than two steps forward, one step back, because that presupposes marching in one direction. The course of our movement, however, more resembles a jitterbug contest or a mosh pit. With a trajectory like that, it is impossible to calculate progress. But overall I am optimistic, because in my experience, the average age of people in our movement is far lower and the average quality is far higher than ten years ago.
As for the 9/11 “conspiracy” theories, I have three thoughts.
First, from a purely pragmatic point of view, the 9/11 account I have outlined above is far superior to any of the more complex theories, because it supports every practical consequence that we want, and it has the added advantages of being based on easily verified facts and being easy to explain.
Second, from a rational point of view, most of the conspiracy theories violate basic principles like Occam’s Razor, namely that the simplest explanation of a given fact is to be preferred. Generally people lead with their strongest arguments, but nothing I have seen makes me want to inquire more deeply. It is laughable, for instance, that people who claim that no planes hit the Pentagon or crashed in Pennsylvania don’t feel a need to explain what really did happen to the airplanes. And as for the claims that the twin towers were brought down by explosives, well doesn’t that seem like overkill? Sure, it looks spectacular on TV. But crashing jetliners into the buildings would have been sufficient to achieve any of the posited motives, from starting a war to totaling the buildings for insurance purposes.
Third, because 9/11 right on its surface is so damaging to Jewish power, and because the official American story (they attacked us because they hate our freedoms) is so absurd, and two out of three Americans knew it, I believe that the enemy felt the need to create a disinformation campaign that would taint even the most cautious and rational critiques of the “official story” with the stench of lunacy. Because the net effect of all the excited talk about disappearing airplanes, controlled demolitions, and false flags manufactured at the highest levels of the US government is that even reasonable alternatives to the official story are dismissed as just more internet conspiracy crankery. Well, maybe that’s what we are supposed to think. Maybe the 9/11 “truth” movement is the real “false flag.”
Remembering Friedrich Nietzsche (October 15, 1844–August 25, 1900)
Remembering Aleister Crowley
(October 12, 1875–December 1, 1947)
Contre le sectarisme de droite
Qu’est-ce que l’Alt Right ?
Savitri Devi, Traditionalism, & Nature Religion
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 376 The Writers’ Bloc with Nick Jeelvy & Beau Albrecht
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 375 Greg Johnson, Stephen Paul Foster, & Richard Houck on How to Respond to Being Called a “Hater!”
On Red State Secession