Counter-Currents
Frans Hals (1582/1583–1666), “Young Man holding a Skull (Vanitas),” 1626 to 1628, oil on canvas, National Gallery, London
2,998 words
Translations: French, German, Polish, Spanish, Swedish
The existing American system has driven white birthrates below replacement while flooding the country with fast-breeding non-white immigrants, both legal and illegal; it promotes racial integration, miscegenation, anti-white discrimination, multiculturalism, and diversity worship; it denigrates white achievements and pathologizes white pride and ethnocentrism while stoking non-white resentment, entitlement, and truculence; and it apparently has no brakes.
If these conditions persist, our race will become extinct. And since genocide is defined not merely as killing a people outright, but also as creating conditions inimical to their long-term survival, the present system is not merely anti-white, it is genocidally anti-white.
A common claim among racially-conscious conservatives and White Nationalists is that this slow-motion anti-white genocide is “our fault,” sometimes even “all our fault.” To give just two recent examples, Patrick Buchanan entitled his latest book on the decline of white America Suicide of a Superpower. Alex Kurtagic, speaking at the 2012 American Renaissance conference, reportedly said, “Western man has brought catastrophe on himself . . . . Western man has become his own worst enemy, opening his borders to the rest of the world and thus ‘sponsoring his own decline.’” (For other examples, see Tanstaafl’s discussions of the “suicide meme” at Age of Treason.)
1. The claim that white dispossession is entirely our fault is absurd on the face of it, since it denies that other groups exercise any agency and bear any responsibility at all. It exculpates the non-whites flooding into white lands, driving us from our homes, destroying our cultures, and crowding out our posterity.
But it is more than absurd. It is repugnant. It implies that white victims of non-white rapists, robbers, and killers are responsible for their plight, but their assailants are not. It implies that Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian were responsible for their own torture and murder at the hands of a gang of blacks, not the blacks themselves.
Whites, however, find such grandiose claims irresistible, for even when we flagellate ourselves for being responsible for all the evils in the world, we secretly revel in the fact that we are the masters of the world, the only people who matter, the only people who make history.
But in the end, when push comes to shove, people who believe themselves guilty for all the evil in the world will give way before the force of people who believe themselves morally righteous. White guilt is promoted to ease the way to white dispossession and white genocide.
2. Whenever you hear talk about what “we” are doing to “ourselves,” you should be suspicious. For collectives do not act. Individuals and small, like-minded elites act in their names. In every society, there are those who rule and those who are ruled. There are those who do things, and those who have things done to them.
Thus “America” is not committing suicide. Some Americans are destroying the country for the rest of us, because it is to their advantage. And if one looks at those who are promoting and profiting from America’s decline, Jews are massively overrepresented among them, although there are white culprits as well.
3. Before we weigh the sense in which whites are responsible for our own predicament, we have to state clearly that 90% of the time, the claim that it is “our fault” is not being advanced as a serious, sincere proposition. Thus one would be a fool to analyze it as such. Most of the time, the claim that white dispossession is “our fault” really means one thing: that it is not the fault of the organized Jewish community. The primary purpose of blaming whites is merely to avoid blaming Jews. Questions of plausibility aside, one could just as well blame God, witches, or space aliens, so long as attention is directed away from the Jews.
Buchanan, for example, knows that many of the destructive policies that he chronicles in his book were pushed by the organized Jewish community in order to enhance their power at the expense of whites. But Buchanan has chosen to play by Semitically-correct rules, so he treats the Jews as part of “us” and then claims that “we” are doing it to ourselves. Whatever Kurtagic actually thinks is going on, he had to blame whites, for American Renaissance forbids White Nationalists from criticizing Jews (while sponsoring Jews to criticize White Nationalism).
So nine times out of ten, when somebody claims white dispossession is “our fault,” this is a dishonest attempt to avoid talking about the Jewish question. Of course the motives, and thus the blameworthiness, of these lies vary. Some are told by sincere white advocates playing an angle. Others are told by Jews hoping to prevent whites from effectively resisting genocide.
4. Some white advocates argue that not all of us should talk about the Jewish problem. Education takes place in stages. One does not study geometry before arithmetic. Before one can understand the Jewish role in the race problem, one first has to understand that there is a race problem at all. First we must learn the facts. Then we can get to the explanation. Furthermore, people have been so brainwashed by racial egalitarianism that it is very difficult to get them to think critically about race. The job is even harder if one throws the Jewish question into the mix, given the six million ways our people have been brainwashed about Jews — from the churches, the schools, the mass media, and popular culture.
This argument has merit, but it does not justify lying about the “suicide” of the West. It is one thing to focus on educating our people about the race problem and leaving the Jewish question to someone else. It is quite another thing to cover for the Jews by claiming that they are white like us and that we are the cause of our own dispossession.
If one wishes to focus on the race question alone, then how should one answer when the Jewish question is raised? An honest answer is simply to point out that there is a debate within the white advocate community about the Jewish role in white dispossession. This answer takes no side but conceals no truths either. It does not amount to complicity with and covering for Jewish subversion. One should state it flatly and then get back on message.
5. Now that we have dealt with the dishonest use of the “our fault” meme, we can deal with the actual question: To what extent is white dispossession our fault? I believe that white dispossession is, to some extent, our own fault. Thus white dispossession is not entirely the fault of the Jews. The Jews could not have done this to us without white collaboration.
6. But we have to analyze what is meant by “fault” here. In the minimum sense, being at fault refers to being a causal factor in one’s own downfall. The strongest sense of “fault” is specifically moral culpability. Moral culpability is relative to two factors: power and knowledge. The more power one has to promote or halt white dispossession, the more responsibility one has. The more knowledge one has of white dispossession, the more responsibility one has.
The fact that many whites think that it is moral to promote the destruction of their own people is no excuse. They know very well that they are harming people, evading reality, and telling lies, even if they think that it is justified by their ultimate ends.
There is also a sense in which moral ignorance should never be treated as an excuse, for above any particular moral imperative is the moral imperative to know the truth about right and wrong. We ought to know what we ought to do. People who labor under false moral systems ought to know better. We all ought to know better, because we all ought to do right.
One can also be at fault in a morally innocent way. One can, for instance, have the best of intentions but still contribute to evil because one is enmeshed in a system that transforms good intentions and deeds into evil results. But once one becomes aware of how one’s decent acts are perverted to serve evil ends, one is responsible to change the system that makes one complicit in evil.
It may be impossible to unplug completely from an evil system. Or even if it is possible, it may render one completely incapable of changing the system. One might have to withdraw from society completely and live under a bridge. But if everyone who became aware of the evils of our system simply dropped out to save his own soul from further culpability, the system would only be strengthened. But the highest imperative is not to maintain the goodness of one’s own soul. The highest imperative is to fight the evil of the system. Thus one should stay plugged into the system, regardless of the personal costs, and do everything one can to change it. And provided that one actually is working to change it, one incurs no more bad karma.
The weakest sense of “fault” is simply a vulnerability, an Achilles heel. Everybody has weaknesses. They are not immoral per se. But how one deals with one’s weaknesses is a moral issue. Specifically, if one is aware of one’s weaknesses and how they can be used by others to further evil ends, one has the responsibility to stop it.
7. The guiltiest whites are the powerful politicians, businessmen, and intellectuals who handed control of our destiny over to Jews. Somewhat less guilty are powerful whites who are products of the current system and who work with non-whites to promote anti-white policies: affirmative action, racial integration, non-white immigration, multiculturalism, globalization, miscegenation, white guilt, etc. These people deserve punishment.
8. Of course, crimes of commission are worse than the crimes of omission. But the fact remains that powerful whites who simply do nothing to halt white dispossession are more culpable than powerless ones.
9. For people in power, ignorance of how long-term trends affect their people is no excuse, because part of their responsibility is to know about such things. They ought to know better.
10. Most whites are relatively powerless. We are merely along for the ride. But most powerless whites still share the universalistic, altruistic, anti-ethnocentric values of the whites who are actively selling us out. Many others share the cynical, selfish, individualistic, devil-take-the-hindmost values of those who actively betray us merely for money and power.
White traitors would be far fewer if their actions were viewed as evil by the majority of the white community. Thus all whites who share the values that promote white genocide also share a small degree of complicity.
11. But what of whites who reject white genocide and the values that promote it? One cannot redeem oneself merely by rejecting deadly ideas, for if one stands by and does nothing to stop them, one is still a bit culpable for the outcome.
12. Worse still are those who know full well the perils that our race faces and decide to “do something,” but then do something counterproductive. It is better to do nothing, than to do something counter-productive. Of course serious men disagree about what is productive. But there are better and worse ways to conduct disputes. And the deeper problem is that we lack serious men to begin with. But if one grasps the full peril of the situation, there is simply no margin for buffoonery.
13. Since all whites at one time or another fall into the above categories, we are all — to widely varying degrees — culpable for our racial decline. All whites bear some responsibility, although whites as a whole do not bear full responsibility.
But once one understands one’s mistakes and learns how to avoid them in the future, there is no point in dwelling on the past. Our goal as White Nationalists should be to bear no further culpability for our ongoing genocide. And the way to do that is: (1) to understand the problem to its roots, (2) to reject all the causes of our predicament, and (3) to actively work for our race’s salvation. Until you do that, you remain part of the problem.
There are different ways to work for our race’s salvation. You decide your own level of explicitness and involvement, and the rest of us will accept that. But whatever you do, make sure that it counts, then do it to be best of one’s ability. You must do your duty, and your first duty is to determine what that duty is.
14. But it is not just the case that whites, individually, are more or less culpable in our own genocide. For genocide is not just a matter of individuals. It is also a matter of the system. The liberal, democratic, capitalist system alone is conducive to white genocide, even without Jewish involvement.
Jewish power and influence have a long history. But present-day Jewish hegemony is a relatively recent phenomenon. It was certainly well-advanced when the Jewish cabal around Woodrow Wilson delivered the United States into World War I. Yet the Jewish lobby was defeated in 1924 by immigration restrictionists. But beginning with the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jewish hegemony was firmly established, and Jews have moved from victory to victory.
It is fair to say that Jews are the primary architects, organizers, defenders, and beneficiaries of this anti-white genocidal system. But if Jews built the superstructure, whites laid the foundations long before the rise of Jewish hegemony.
White capitalists promoted wave after wave of immigration of increasingly heterogeneous white and non-white stocks in order to gain advantages over the native-born working class. (The vast majority of American Jews came here as immigrants, drawn by the anti-national, anti-racial logic of capitalism.)
White businessmen bought black slaves and hired Chinese coolies rather than pay white workers living wages. (The fact that Jews were among the sellers of slaves is immaterial. They could not have sold them if nobody was buying.)
The white universalism, egalitarianism, and racial altruism that sustain the system are entirely alien to Judaism. Their roots lie in Greek natural law philosophy, Christianity, and Enlightenment liberalism. These values led Americans to fight a bloody and devastating Civil War largely over black slavery long before the rise of Jewish hegemony.
As Patrick Buchanan points out in Suicide of a Superpower, the materialistic values of liberal democracy have led to declining fertility in every first world country, including Israel and Asian countries, which lack hostile Jewish elites. If you combine this system with the racial egalitarianism and altruism and non-white immigration that existed in America before Jewish hegemony, one arrives at pretty much the same system that is killing us today. In other words, the present American system could conceivably have developed along essentially the same lines, even if Jews had never set foot on our shores.
This means that if the Jews suddenly departed tomorrow, but the capitalist system and universalist, egalitarian values remained in place, our race would still be on the path to extinction. Thus we need to do more than merely separate ourselves from other races. We also need to get to the deepest roots of the problem: the moral, political, and economic weaknesses that Jews are exploiting so effectively.
15. We are not, however, entitled to ignore reality just because it could have been different. And the reality we face is the rule of a hostile Jewish elite promoting genocide against whites. Jews are not the only members of our ruling coalition, but they are the senior partners who determine the overall direction of the system and have subordinated it to their ethnic interests. All other groups in the ruling coalition – environmentalists, labor unions, feminists, homosexuals — have to take a back seat when their interests conflict with the Jewish agenda of white genocide.
16. Furthermore, Jews are the primary guardians of the present system. Even if one wishes to criticize and change this system without mentioning Jews, as soon as one presents a credible challenge, one will find oneself opposed by Jews acting as Jews to secure their collective interests. Sometimes we do not get to choose our enemy because our enemy chooses us. Ultimately, there is no way for whites to regain control of our destiny without explicitly naming and fighting Jewish power. As Alex Linder said, there’s no way out but through the Jews.
17. Assigning blame to whites does not in any way lessen Jewish culpability. If I foolishly walk into a black neighborhood and get murdered, my folly does not lessen the assailant’s guilt. It does not transform homicide into suicide and absolve the killer of his crime. Likewise, due to white weaknesses, follies, and vices, the organized Jewish community is now committing genocide against our race. But that does not alter the facts: whites are not committing suicide; we are the targets of genocide.
18. Blaming whites for our present plight is analogous to a doctor treating lung cancer with a stern lecture about the necessity of quitting smoking. Yes, smokers are responsible for their cancers. But assigning blame is not the same thing as a cure. Once one already has cancer, it is too late to change one’s lifestyle to prevent it. One must first excise the tumor. Then, if one survives the operation, one can work on the necessary lifestyle changes to make sure the cancer does not return.
Yes, whites are in large part responsible for our plight. We are suffering from bad leadership, bad values, and an ethnocidal political and economic system that has made us vulnerable to race-replacement and a takeover by a hostile Jewish elite. We’ll work on those problems. But first we need to cut out the cancer that’s killing us. We need to regain control of our destiny and separate ourselves from other races. Then, if we survive, we can work on creating a new system that ensures that this will never happen again.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
113 comments
Excellent piece. You’re one of those “great simplifiers” Greg, which is exactly what we need.
Thanks.
IMHO this is your finest and most powerful statement to date. Congratulations.
Your #3 must be thoroughly understood and its implications (which you develop masterfully) meditated on by all who live to affirm the future of the white race.
This is the sort of intervention in an ongoing historical discussion, confused by the welter of conflicting viewpoints and perspectives from those at various points in their awakening, that really helps to settle and clarify.
I appreciate the kind words.
Excellent piece. Unlike the few WN cowards with phDs, you actually have the balls to name the enemy.
Make no mistake, the only reason WNs blame white people is because they want to sound sophisticated, non-conspiratorial, and nuanced.
White suicide is actually genocide. The masses have always been idiots, so to claim that most white people are not interested in protecting their traditions is asinine (as Kurtagic argues). Most whites never have and never will care about anything beyond physical survival/social approval/hedonism.
The Jews discredited the idea of aristocracy, virtue, and excellence, and now, having crushed the institutions that produced great White men, run on our society.
I think its disgusting to see so many interracial couples among young people (I’m an undegrad) and pretend that this all happened because “whites let it happen.” The future is going to be miscegenated, heavily … coming to a town near you!
There is no hope and its because of the cowardice of those who don’t want to identify the real enemy at the expense of sounding crazy.
I support CC because Greg Johnson in not a showboating coward.
I don’t have the balls NOT to name the enemy, since the consequences of NOT naming them are far more frightening than taking on the Jews and their lackeys and dupes.
Some positive news, Mike Church actually had a guest on his radio program this morning who openly bemoaned the loss of Anglo hegemony in Texas. I was shocked.
Good article, Greg.
Thanks. I started jotting notes down on the topic two years ago. I decided it was finally time to put them together and see if the result could fly.
Some people, see this as “our fault” to have a sense of power and control. If only “we” change the minds of others, everything will change once we have all seen the light. This ignores the underlying hostile power structure, that is constantly subversive and would most likely ignore (as it already does) the will of a WN people. I have seen this in myself- just so annoyed and disappointed at fellow whites….then again it is difficult to find truth when you are constantly bombarded with lies, every waking moment.
I agree with your “honesty is the best policy” approach. I have always been very outspoken with my family and they have been quite receptive. My approach, which has worked quite well, is to encourage someone to say something politically incorrect, and then praise them for how right they are. For example if a Christian brings up why The Passion was so scorned….
The enemy’s propaganda onslaught is necessary, it’s on the tip of everyone’s tongue, and only the most arduous efforts can restrain it.
ugh. i can’t english. First line should read “Some people see this as our fault”
Sometimes it is less important for us to say politically incorrect things than to make others feel safe to say the same things.
Great points. Its very Xtian, or should I say Jewish, to morally blame ourselves for modernity. To turn the degeneracy of the West into moralizing and a blame game is weakness.
What if the forces we are up against are so demonic, manipulative, and powerful that its really not our fault?
No, it is very white, that is to say, honorable, rational, and objective, to lay blame where blame is due, including upon ourselves. That is not just a theoretical self-indulgence. It is a practical necessity of actually fixing the problem. Because you can’t fix it, if you don’t understand it and level with yourself about one’s own self-subverting behaviors.
The mind that prefers not to deal with facts, and refuses to take responsibility for its own actions, because they get in the way of maintaining a delusional positive image is what M. Scott Peck defined as evil.
“The mind that prefers not to deal with facts, and refuses to take responsibility for its own actions, because they get in the way of maintaining a delusional positive image is what M. Scott Peck defined as evil.”
Do you favor that definition? Does it not lump the majority of humans in with truly evil people, who seek the suffering of others for their own pleasure?
Taking responsibility for one’s actions is conscience-driven behavior occurring in honor-based societies, where it is mostly restricted to males. Conscience is a trait of white people. For instance, the more corruption reigns in a country, the less conscience-driven its society is, as conscience is essentially a system of moral constraints we impose on ourselves, for ourselves.
Other cultures are shame-based. There, actions acquire a moral dimension only when they are noticed by others. The individual is not so much a moral agent as it is a surface for the projection of society’s morals. In such environments taking responsibility for one’s own action is a weakness, whereas the threat of shame and punishment enforces social structure.
Obviously some evil people are worse than others, but there have to be some common traits in virtue of which we call them evil. Moreover, it is possible to do an evil thing without being an evil person. It might also be possible to have the evil character type without every having actually done something evil. I think that Peck really captures something about evil people: the desire to feel good about oneself trumps all other considerations, leading to systematic lies and manipulations and the refusal to take responsibility.
That sounds like an excellent strategy Flavia! WNs need to practice restraint and have some discipline in order to be effective in helping folks wake up. They need to learn some talking points and strategies such as yours rather than just “vomiting” on people.
Awesome, awesome article Dr. Johnson!
When 2% of a population controls 98% with impunity, it’s empirical proof that that 98% is inferior. If they weren’t inferior, things would be the opposite. Blaming Jews would be understandable if they were 20-30% of our population, but when they’re just a tiny fraction and still rule over us, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If we were just one-tenth as motivated, organized, and pitiless as they are, there would be no possible way for them to dominate us. They would hardly matter at all.
We Whites have always been too naive, too gullible, too kind, and idealistic. That’s our problem. If we were hardened realists then we would have destroyed Judaism and Jewish identity thousands of years ago, when the Romans had total control over Judea. But even the Romans were too soft-hearted and continually let the Jews have their own society even after they viciously slaughtered Roman citizens in their various rebellions…and this was before Christian morality warped our minds. There’s something seriously wrong with us.
Are humans inferior to scorpions and spiders because we are vulnerable to their stings?
The term “inferior” is misplaced here. We are vulnerable to Jews, just as we are vulnerable to bullets.
When a man has been shot, you don’t blame him for not being bullet proof.
You blame him, though, if he handed his gun over to a criminal.
A human getting accidentally stung by a scorpion is one thing. But when millions of humans have been repeatedly stung by scorpions for 2,000 years and have not yet learned to stay away from them, it means there’s something wrong with the humans, not the scorpions.
Which continues my analogy. The point is: we cannot be blamed for our vulnerabilities, since all beings have them. What we can be blamed for is how we allow other beings to exploit those vulnerabilities.
There have been many cases of Jews suddenly being dealt with, driven out of the land and stripped of their ill gotten possessions. England and Spain come to mind. Don’t forget the shift in the Soviet Union from Jewland were anti-semitism was a capital offense to Stalin squeezing Jews out of power. Of course, NSDAP’s activity on that front takes the cake. So while the Jews certainly have a talent for getting power over hosts populations, they are hardly invulnerable.
Your definition of inferior is rather questionable though. Is a hookworm superior to the man whose guts it resides in? Is a virus superior to the cell it hijacks? Perhaps using Talmudic logic we can say that, since Jewry strives mightily to be that virus or hookworm. But that is a metric repugnant to a healthy white person. How can a tribe of scheming parasites be considered superior to the race that produced Alexander, Magelan, Lindberg, and countless others? Why does it even matter if they’re superior parasites? They are not us, they want to kill us off, see our daughters miscegenate with blacks, degrade them sexually while emasculating the white man, once the unstoppable conqueror of land, sea, air and space — if we understand that to be true we must stop it.
Another great one from GJ. Bowden said CCP was a university, so GJ is the leading professor.
Thank you
I most remember GJ writing that we are Zionists, because we want a place to put the Jews. That makes us also Afro-centric, because we want a place to but the blacks, and we support La Raza, because it wants a homeland for the Mexicans, but we want it to be Mexico.
“I deserve better than this” is a GJ favorite, but which essay?
Even I can’t answer that.
Taylor invites a jew to Amren who claims that White Nationalists are considered right up there with child molesters, so of course we should stop talking about race. After Weissberg gets dumped from NR for being at Amren, he reports to politco that “White nationalism is not really an ideology, its obnoxious,”
How can anyone take Amren serious after the Weissberg “talk”?
I was willing to give Taylor the benefit of the doubt but after Weissberg, I’m thinking more along the lines with Linder in regards to Taylor and his Amren conference.
Taylor paid a Jew to come and insult the intelligence and honor of his audience. Surely it comes as no surprise to him that said Jew is now throwing him under the bus.
That is a particular criticism of AmRen. Other than that, would you agree it serves a vital role, per its news service and Taylor’s high profile? Any other particular criticism besides their Jew problem?
Yes, I would agree with that. See my review of Jared Taylor’s WHITE IDENTITY: https://counter-currents.com/2011/05/jared-taylors-white-identity/
It may be a particular criticism but its a big one.
Forget the Jewish question for a second. Why would anyone invite blantant enemies to speak at a conference on White issues. It shows incredible weakness on behalf of Amren and anyone who sat through that speech without getting up and walking out.
Btw, how many got up and walked out when this turd began comparing us to child molestors? These are our “leaders”? The A3P was there who claim to support White patriots. Why didnt they get up and walk out when this jackass compared us to child molestors?
These milquetoast men might be fine for the unwashed masses but they are not worth jack shit for a real nationalist. Yet everytime I turn around they are asking us “child molestors” for donations and support.
Did he compare WNs to child molesters, or merely say that most people regard us as in the same category?
From what I gather, Weissberg merely offered the very familiar lamentation that we’re regarded as more morally leprous than child molesters by mainstream society. I wasn’t there, but the weight of his previous statements and impressions left on the members I spoke to was that he’s a typical White Stats-ionalist and spoke as one at the event.
His thesis at the conference was that Whites should quietly gather amongst themselves whenever possible but abandon all hope for doing so explicitly or proudly. Be sleazy and shameful about it. If caught being White, lie, apologize, and scatter like roaches in the light.
In a way, Weissberg was consistently practicing what he preached.
Ulfric: how many got up and walked out when this turd began comparing us to child molestors? These are our “leaders”? The A3P was there who claim to support White patriots. Why didnt they get up and walk out when this jackass compared us to child molestors?
Greg Johnson: Did he compare WNs to child molesters, or merely say that most people regard us as in the same category?
I haven’t see the full context of Weissberg’s remarks so my assessment here is tentative. It seems that Weissberg said the latter. However, even Weissberg meant it this way, his remark was still a typically self-serving Jewish comment and one clearly intended to demoralize Whites while misleading the Amren audience.
As a typical Jew, Weissberg left out the fact that most people put us in that molester category because his fellows Jews have used their media and cultural power to demonize us with 60 years of lies and propaganda.
Jews are primarily responsible for demonizing White advocates as the equivalent of molesters, and a Jew shows up at Amren to argue Whites should avoid explicit advocacy because people view them as molesters.
There is no winning with these people. What is it going to take to get the people on our side who like to dance with Jews to realize it?
Well yes – the Paleos and Amren types don’t want to talk about the Jews. Agree 100% about that part of it. But “our” Elite sold us out to them – for their own reasons. And we were the ones who elected some of them – and kept electing the same kind for generations. The Jews are symptomatic and opportunistic. Our weakness lead to this. Guess I’m agreeing, but perhaps putting a little more blame on us.
A few of us bear a great deal of responsibility for our plight, and all of us bear some responsibility, but that does not mitigate the fact that the organized Jewish community is responsible for genocide against our race. I might be a fool for walking into a black neighborhood, but if I am murdered by a black, my folly does not cancel out his guilt in the slightest.
Yes, this “who’s responsible?” meme is what gets people so confused about the “eternal” Jewish question. And it doesn’t even get to the bottom of the issue, really. Beneath the finger-pointing and resentment, what it boils down to is that we’re too different to share a society. It’s amazing how some of the most intelligent minds trip themselves up about it.
First, they fret over whether to “include” Jews or not and never consider that it is the Jew himself that first excludes and most vehemently excludes. The decision has already been made whether guilt-ridden whitey comprehends and approves this or not. The WASP (elite), in my opinion, is the most deluded of the European stocks with respect to this “exclusion” illusion.
I might like some of what Dr. Paul Gottfried has to say, but at the end of the day, he sees himself as a Jew, not as a European. And after all, why would I want to dilute a label he’s likely very proud of by throwing “European” on top of it? Why insult to a Jew (by watering him down) to appease one’s self-important sense of guilt over possibly “excluding” him, right? A “European Jew” is a contradiction just as much as a “Turkish Chinese” is a contradiction. End of story.
I wish people like Taylor (whom I respect and welcome over some of the more sinister white nationalists– I won’t name names) could just see how uniquely they treat Jews (over ANYONE else) just by entertaining the idea that the Jews AND ONLY THE JEWS can be Jewish (a “minority”) and white. They buy into a kosher dialectic before they’ve even spread their wings. It’s like, “way to validate the egos of the ‘chosen’, guys.”
But back the issue of “responsibility.” The most common of the tactics I see Jews and Jew apologists engage in to bully whites into self-denial is the transfer of moral guilt with clever language queues. Simply NOTICE their behavior and you’re “BLAMING” the Jews. This works so well that it trips up a good half of the white nationalists on internet sites. Some of these pro-white people become bulldogs FOR the Jews. What a waste of energy. As if enough money isn’t already speaking on behalf of Jason and Ben. One can argue that even minds as great as Nietzsche and Spengler didn’t properly make this distinction (though I may not completely understand their criticism of “anti-semiticism”).
At any rate, the “responsibility” is ours. Characterizing Jews for what they are is all good and well. We need not be defensive about throwing rocks at Jews. At pushing back at those who push us. But people that make it a point to SCAPEGOAT Jews miss the point. As hard as it is for people to grasp this idea, scapegoating is different from DESCRIBING the Jews. One has crossed into the realm of SCAPEGOATING when he has made himself and his own group 100% passive and has thus excused himself and his group from all wrong by virtue of such perceived inaction against an aggressor. It’s a difficult distinction, I suppose. But one that white meta-politics should probably work toward carving out in the same way so many now say “anti-racist is anti-white.”
So we should not make ourselves into victims because we recognize an enemy. Not to harp on Christianity, but that is one of its failings being the desert faith that it ultimately is. I think Counter Currents avoids scapegoating fairly well while still bringing up the issue in a realistic way which is why I enjoy the site. Occidental Observer readership tends more toward scapegoating but I think Dr. Kevin MacDonald is excellent. Stormfront posters sometimes seem to engage in over-the-top scapegoating (if well-meaning in most cases) and American Renaissance and VDare are in just plain denial. But I guess they serve well as “gateway” sites.
I like David Duke. He seems like a nice guy. I guess that appeals to people. But that lamb-like image he paints of whites (and even other races) is an improper picture of the world; it’s as though the world is this nice sandbox and these bully hook noses came along and “we” (again, this can include “all of the peoples of the world” at times) just have to stand up to them. It too easily ignores that there is ALWAYS a bully and what is happening now is not some one time only “evil” we have to overcome to get to the promised land of white racial bliss.
The idea of a scapegoat implies a specifically innocent victim who is punished for the crimes of others. That certainly does not describe Jews or the approach to Jews at a site like TOO.
Excellent article, Greg. In order to get the Jewish parasite off our backs, we must expose and destroy ALL the Jew’s brazen lies from the holohoax to the Mossad false flag 9-11 operation. The Jews are the world’s foremost liars. White people have been naive and trusting of these parasites for too long. We need to shake off our guilt and timidity and grow some balls.
I think most of what passes for the 9/11 truth movement is a real false flag. I am undecided about the value of Holocaust revisionism to our cause. But I certainly think that most revisionists are decent and honorable people, and I wish them well.
Dear Greg,
For the Official Conspiracy Theory of 911 to be true it is necessary to believe that a large network of Muslim terrorist was able to operate unhindered inside the United States for a prolonged period. This implies that our police agencies, intelligence agencies, and counterintelligence agencies were criminally incompetent. For the Official Conspiracy Theory to be true it is necessary to believe that the airport security at all of the airports was criminally incompetent. For the Official Conspiracy Theory to be true is it necessary to believe that the Department of Defense and the United States Air Force were criminally incompetent. Criminal incompetence that permits a bloody national disaster is something that calls for investigation and punishment. Yet all of the people who were in responsible positions received promotions and rewards. Clearly, they had not failed; they had done what was desired.
Since the above can only be explained by a treasonous conspiracy organized from the top, the cabal had prepared many measures to prevent their exposure.
The 911 Truth Movement had to be expected and prepared for. Any individual and any organization in the movement must be carefully examined to determine whether they had been assigned roles to sabotage the movement and to spread confusion.
Criminal incompetence is business as usual for the US government. Rewarding criminal incompetence is business as usual for the US government. The absurd premise of the “truthers” is that the US government cannot fail, so its apparent failures must actually be part of a secret plan. I’m not buying.
Here are my views of 9/11: https://counter-currents.com/2011/09/911-ten-years-later/
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Greg Johnson in blockquote:
All too accurate an observation. As Peter Shank, to my mind our best commentator, said, “The 911 ‘Truth’ Movement” is like the board game “Clue.” They describe everything on great detail – the gun, the bullet, the gunpowder, how and where the bullet entered the body – except for the one question that matters – ‘WHO pulled the trigger?'”
Any attempt to answer THAT question leads you to the classical question, “Who Gains?” The answer, at all points, is Israel, Israeli citizens, and Judaism.
To date, the track record of holocaust revisionism to the Cause has been bout zero. It’s the same people saying the same things to the same others people, and it is like the secular equivalent of a religion – either you Believe, or you do not. The presence or absence of Holy Relics does not matter to the True Believer.
More on point, not one person has become politically converted to the Cause because of their refutation of the factual basis of the Holocaust. No votes, no political organization, no money – another tale full of sound and fury, signifying the self-selected ineffectiveness of those who complain about issues for ever, rather than do one good deed to solve the problem.
Today’s Good Deed – sending some money to counter-currents.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Diversity is about to score another Cali victory. Perfect set up for Obama- Diversity bankrupts L.A., Diversity bails out L.A., taxes and inflation go up on Whites, Whites have less money and less freedom, we all take a “proud step” toward Equality as Whites are reduced to the material levels of Diversity, and then lower.
All that Whites really have left now are their incomes and accumulated wealth. Our future opportunities are now set aside for privileged Diversity, and our elites are busy giving away all our institutions to Diversity.
Money is the next thing to go. When they have that and we are truly Equal to the Diversity degradations, then we have nothing more to lose as we focus on vengeance.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/cjc0412tg.html
Greg, whether you take the following comment as a note from a friend or angling from an enemy, I think it remains valuable either way. The main problem I have with this essay is that it treats the race issue/crisis as always having been simple, clear and obvious, and thus assumes it has only ever been a matter of courage, morality and gumption to address it. The fact is, the race issue is complex, obscure and nuanced; if it is coming into sharper focus with the pace of demographic change (ie impending racial oblivion) it is because the race issue has always been in large part a matter of numbers — a fact which itself demonstrates the race issue’s complexity. The main effect, I believe, of presenting the race issue as simple, clear and obvious is to simultaneously energize your supporters while hardening the hearts of your target audience, many of whom will not take kindly to being considered malicious or foolish. Surely the best presentation of the issue is one which makes it as easy as possible to agree with; doing that requires making allowances for why so many got it so wrong for so long.
Way back when this country was given away, the race and Jewish questions were very clearly understood, and understanding was much more widely disseminated than it is today. For example, the debates surrounding immigration restriction in the teens and twenties, Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color, and Henry Ford’s The International Jew. Sure, some people in influential positions may have been ignorant, but in their case, you can say that they should have known better.
As for the brainwashed products of this system, they are less culpable because they have to be understood first as victims. I have nothing but sympathy for most of them.
But the higher one rises in the social hierarchy, the more corrupt people are: they are engaged in deliberate injustice, deception, and treachery.
Way back when this country was given away, the race and Jewish questions were very clearly understood, and understanding was much more widely disseminated than it is today. For example, the debates surrounding immigration restriction in the teens and twenties, Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color, and Henry Ford’s The International Jew. Sure, some people in influential positions may have been ignorant, but in their case, you can say that they should have known better.
Yes, but this inadvertently proves my point. There were debates surrounding immigration, not race per se (at least not enough about race per se). The immigration policy that resulted from those debates didn’t even completely cut off immigration, it merely slowed the flow, and this even though its most avid proponents wanted it enacted for explicitly racial reasons; and nary a peep was uttered about repatriation. What is that but a clear case of insufficient understanding of the racial issue? What is such insufficient understanding — among learned, unabashed American patriots in positions of power — but evidence that the race issue is more complex than meets the eye?
Let’s travel back one hundred years and meet, say, a young Lothrop Stoddard, who, I think it safe to assume, would most likely have formed his opinion on racial matters by that time and would have readily agreed with the statement: “America is a Nordic country.” Simple, clear and obvious. But the minute we suggest “America must forever remain a Nordic country” the racial issue ceases to be simple, clear and obvious. (This remains true even if we travel back only to, say, 1960, and, with the dream of securing a Nordic America fading fast, suggest that “America is a white country” and “America must forever remain a white country.”) Far from being simple, clear and obvious the race issue becomes quite complex: factually complex; morally complex; and normatively complex.
Understand, I’m not suggesting it is so complex that is beyond any one man’s ability to make sense of it all. Not at all. My point is it’s not enough for certain individuals to understand it; that understanding must be conveyed to a critical mass of society and in such a way that the necessary action results from it. Failure to do that will result in what has been seen up till now: WNs with “understanding” and stats coming out of their ears, “all dressed up and nowhere to go.”
There was a great deal of understanding on race, but the immigration restriction of the 1920s was the flawed product of democracy. The issues were black and white, but democratic bargaining reduces all outcomes to shades of gray.
“The idea of a scapegoat implies a specifically innocent victim who is punished for the crimes of others. That certainly does not describe Jews or the approach to Jews at a site like TOO.”
Perhaps I resorted to too much of a loose, colloquial usage of the term “scapegoat” rather than a denotative one. (In my attempts to grope for some concept, maybe I should have simply wrote “gratuitously vilify.”) But all I meant in writing “scapegoating Jews” in the above post is that we should not simply throw all of the wrongs of the West onto them as people would do to a scapegoat to purify themselves. In other words, it’s not as if whites and their fecal matter don’t stink right now, too (as you know).
The “scapegoating” prevents us from seeing this. I feel like we’re not critical enough of ourselves when Jew talk reaches fever pitch is all I’m saying. I didn’t mean to imply Jewish innocence and I felt like that was pretty obvious but I suppose the word I used carried some baggage. I see plenty of pro-white types speak as if the whole problem is that there is a Jew under every bed. Then, there are the Philos. Yet, pointing out that there is a Jew under SOME beds and that many whites are laying on these beds watching it all go to hell at the same time seems difficult to juggle from a movement (if not intellectual) perspective if the goal is to keep people on a consistent message. The white right (the people who comment and presumably “spread the word”) hasn’t found a comfortable niche or angle with respect to this issue even if the writers on sites like TOO are meticulous and informed.
There just seems to be an inability among the collective herd, if not the writers, to distinguish between pattern observation and blaming. That’s why I was suggesting that perhaps even some cheesy mantra like “anti-racist is anti-white” could perhaps aid people to coming to terms with our ideas about Jews. The political issue is not “complicated” like so many say or imply that it is even if the history itself is complicated.
With respect to TOO, I didn’t mean to slander their staff. They have great writers. I was more referring to a portion of its readership and the state of the “movement” within such respective circles who I see comment.
I have moved pretty close to Alex Linder’s position on the Jews. Alex Linder’s position, essentially, is William Pierce’s and Adolf Hitler’s position anyway. Therefore, I don’t over-think it any more. There’s Jews, and there’s us. If a person or org purports to be for Whites but doesn’t explicitly denounce, oppose, shun, condemn and exclude Jews without apology and without exception, the person or org must have no principles or the wrong ones.
With the vast majority of these nationalists who tolerate Jews, I do think it is a matter of them having the wrong principles rather than none.
Of course, it needs to be said too that it is very easy for me and others to crouch (Linder and many others might say cower and with some justification) in the quasi-anonymity of the internet and call for others to openly oppose Jews in public. It’s a very legitimate criticism.
At the same, I would rather do nothing and will defend doing nothing as opposed to doing *something* when all history and evidence suggests that *something* is a waste of time and energy. The historical evidence shows that supporting orgs that haven’t yet learned the hard way when it comes to Jews is just such a waste.
Lew, I don’t think we need to oppose the Jews today for they are riding so high and so publicly in what seems to be a sinking ship that they seemed destined for a great fall. Having said that they are worth studying for the simple fact that they have risen to such heights. We read the biographies of great men to learn why they became great and the Jews should be studied for the same reason.
Sandy, I don’t see how you defeat an enemy that you don’t identify as an enemy. One of Greg’s most penetrating insights in this essay is this idea that sometimes your enemies pick you even if you don’t pick them. Every White advocate who believes it’s possible to help White people without opposing Jews ought to meditate on this point.
Revilo P. Oliver has pointed out that the jewish strategy is in their Bible. The Book of Esther and the Book of Genesis (Joseph in Egypt) reads like a primitive Mossad manual to a critical eye.
How about the israeli spy, Eli Cohen? He was third in line to succeed as president of Syria at the time he was discovered.
Nietzsche on the Jews: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Dalton-Nietzsche.html
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Greg Johnson in blockquote:
I’ll have to read the actual lecture that was cited, but it seems to me we are looking at the perfect emasculation offered by the double-bind.
In effect, if I understand this position, the way to succeed as White Nationalists is to never identify ourselves as… White Nationalists. When we have been reduced to living in small, easily overwhelmed, trailer park-like “enclaves,” then we can show our true identities. Is the appearance of contempt, open damn contempt, seen here?
I’ll have to read the transcript to see if anyone rose to address these issues with anything other than barking seal applause. This is simply breathtaking in its audacity, if that is the actual situation before us.
This was the primary flaw with the “White Zion” concept offered us, and this is why Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic is the only valid temporal bridge for the metapolitical project.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
A friend writes:
Where white people make their mistakes is they assume everyone else in the world is like us, therefore we behave in chivalrous ways expecting the same back. We very poorly watch how others behave and we don’t learn. As a matter of fact, psychopaths watch how other people behave emotionally (this is fact) so that they can mimick emotions that they don’t feel, and they learn how to size up people, and figure out their weaknesses. I do think psychopathy is very high among the Jews because they size us up for our weaknesses–our tendency to easily feel shame–and they use that against us. They are very good manipulators–and so is the rest of the world. The rest of the world already knows all you have to do is guilt-trip Americans and you can get pretty much anything you want out of us. We don’t see that and we are always sitting ducks.
A friend also writes:
The devil in our lives is the way we have been conditioned. Who we have come to believe we are does not come from our own direct experiences but from the opinions of others. Our “personality” as a race has been imposed upon us from the outside and has replaced our individuality as a unique people who have an inherent and valid right to that uniqueness. Because of PC blackmail we cease to grow–and fully contribute–as a people. We are changed against our wills. We are disallowed the right to choose for ourselves as a people. On account of constant intimidation we, an innately ethical people, have submitted to the rape of who we are. We are lions entrapped as sheep by threats of humiliation that aren’t even real.
We are coerced to avoid looking upon our own reflection and are intimidated from putting our words to what we really see. Our conditioning has turned us all into a herded people. Love for our own character and ways has been replaced by an illusion of fear and humiliation. Humiliation is designed to cause isolation–a fate that lead ancient people to their deaths. We falsely believe we have permission only to exist as separated individuals, and therefore discouraged from uniting with one another, even though this is a basic human need for survival; social identity and group cohesion is as important as water and air. We don’t gain uniqueness by being separated–we lose it, because we lose ourselves; we lose our genetic uniqueness beginning with our conditioned beliefs about ourselves. We are victims of lies.
An insightful, to the point post by Greg Johnson. Thank you.
“The job is even harder if one throws the Jewish question into the mix, given the six million ways our people have been brainwashed about Jews — from the churches, the schools, the mass media, and popular culture.”
A nice dig at holohoax claims.
But later you write:
———
Greg Johnson
Posted April 12, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink
I think most of what passes for the 9/11 truth movement is a real false flag. I am undecided about the value of Holocaust revisionism to our cause. But I certainly think that most revisionists are decent and honorable people, and I wish them well.
—————-
With respect, I think your indecision regarding Revisionism is profoundly wrong. I suggest that the holohoax is the ‘killer app’ for the WN movement.
Expose the holohoax for what it is, the Big Jewish Lie, and then the floodgates will be, or at least can be, opened. The holohoax is now the ‘original sin’ of Whites, brought to us via an endless media stream of ant-White propaganda ‘reminders’ of the holohoax, every day of our lives now.
The holohoax exploits White guilt, creating self hate, leading to us being led by our noses to self destruction by the jews. It’s their psychological stranglehold over us (‘us’ in this case includes virtually all levels of society, but in particular the older members, the ‘thought leaders’ in any community) that stops any revolt dead in its tracks.
The holohoax is not just some fictional historical event, it has turned into an anti-White religion out to ‘Holocaust us’.
We need to destroy this Big Jewish Lie once and for all.
I think the whole apparatus of holocaust education/museums/memorials/movies/guilt/moral blackmail is the red cape, and we bulls need to stop charging the cape and focus on the guy who is waving it. The holocaust narrative is not the foundation of Jewish power. It is merely a manifestation of Jewish power. And Jews will change their ideologies and tactics as soon as it suits them. I want to focus on the bigger, more fundamental questions: who the Jews are, what they are up to, and the real roots of their power over our minds.
Even if every jot and tittle of holocaust lore were entirely factual, right down to the truckloads of babies dumped into pits of fire (somewhere near the camp swimming pool, no doubt), it does not follow that Jews get a free pass to screw the rest of the human race until the sun blows up.
If you get to the root of why whites accept that morally absurd non-sequiter, and work on that problem, then our people’s minds will be free. If we don’t deal with that issue, then in 50 years, Jews will be arguing that we owe them reparations because we went along with their fake holocaust claims which prevented them from reunifying families in which all the members survived but presumed that the others didn’t.
I think attacking the holocaust lie is consistent with your point number 2, exposing what they are up to. Part of what they are up to is lying. As the great master of lies, Jewry is always lying help them sustain their power. For this reason, I think we need to work to expose the narrative as a lie just like we work to expose every other Jewish lie (race equality, diversity is a strength, etc.). No better way to remove the power of a lie over the mind than to demonstrate it is a lie.
I understand your argument, and I wish the revisionists well. But based on the points that I have made above, as well as simple division of labor, revisionism is not part of what we do.
I think it’s possible to undermine the effect of the Holocaust narrative among serious thinkers without actually going after the numbers. Just being well-versed about the conflict itself is enough. Seriously. (Only in liberal ideology do the numbers themselves take such precedence over the motive.) In fact, in terms of moral logic, the numbers are not as relevant as many seem to be lead to believe they are. That said, I obviously do not object to people like Robert Faurisson going after the numbers. But any “victories” in that area constitute icing on the cake, not the heavy blows our side needs.
The point I always make with respect to the Holocaust is that the Germans were the ones being attacked. They were not perpetuating the conflict. That’s the first matter you need to establish when arguing with someone about the “evil” Germans. Hitler wanted Danzig; Britain blocked this effort; Hitler offered peace twice; it was twice rejected. If they bring up the annexation of Czechoslovakia, point out that “poor” Poland took some of that very land too. Point out what the Soviets were doing (Ukraine, Baltic states, Finland) while we praised them and simultaneously condemned Hitler for less. So get that duplicitous dialogue from the Western “Allies” established first.
The people in German concentration camps were liabilities during a war THE ALLIES WANTED and many were perhaps hostile toward the German effort to defend itself. They certainly were not on the German side. So the camps in principle were justified (if not every action that took place within them). Point out that America also had camps if the person objects to this premise. Then explain how later on during the conflict when prospects dimmed for the Germans, the Soviets had became blood drunk and were raping just about every German woman in sight on the Eastern front. In late 1942, the earliest such “genocides” could be said to have taken place, the Germans themselves were facing something much worse than “persecution” but annihilation. They weren’t given a choice.
Germans, of course, were feeling the heat on the Western front as well.
If you were a Wehrmacht soldier, you understood that the enemy was on one side (surrounding you) in the form of what may as well have been barbaric hordes given the devastation they were causing while on the other side stood everything this soldier cherished– his kin, extended kin, and his country. What was he supposed to do? Not fight? Allow his world to be swallowed up? At some point, a large chunk of the guilt for the brutality a German unleashes to defend himself and his livelihood against such a menace does fall upon the people bringing about his dire situation. If I deliberately set fire to a large building and people start trampling over each other in an “either it’s me or you” type fashion, it is disingenuous of me to act as though I have no connection to the cruelty that came from within the building as people tried to save themselves. That is why I myself cannot stomach Allied righteousness (though I do give the soldiers on our side who fought bravely some slack as they were used by the political class).
What the Germans did to such concentration camp prisoners, if horrible, is at least understandable GIVEN the context. Ask the person you’re trying to persuade why they focus “horrible” and “brutality” onto German people themselves rather than examining how a horrible situation itself had developed for the Germans during that time thanks to Allied aggression. If Germany “betrayed” Europe by invading Poland what did we do to Germany by siding with Stalin? That is the ultimate betrayal of Europa, if you ask me. That aggression Germans faced (merciless air raids in particular) would by necessity lead to some measure of brutality one way or the other. The German brutality didn’t exist within a vacuum. (That would be my rallying cry.)
Because if you or I or Mr. Hypothetical have to choose between some Jews and our families, we’re choosing our families. And rightfully so! This is a no-brainer. Never do people consider that the Allies had some role in escalating German brutality. Never does anyone consider that German brutality within the camps was mostly a RESPONSE to their own impending doom. And if people doubt that Americans wouldn’t have acted the same way when faced with similar circumstances, refer them to the way we treated civilians in Dresden to “appease” Stalin or in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after we had smashed their air force, navy, and most of their army. Facing no existential threat, we saw it fit to slaughter civilians wholesale while condemning “German brutality” as those people were faced with the gravest and most serious existential threat in their people’s long history. This is a huge disconnect. And you can score points appealing to that disconnect; it’s a backdoor around having to worry about numbers because using that argument makes the numbers irrelevant (or certainly less relevant). The honest thinker will have to admit that he’s applied a double standard.
Again, one must also establish that Germans were not aggressors who wanted to take over the whole world. But that is becoming easier to do. Refer them to some of Mark Weber’s discussions or even Pat Buchanan’s recent book on the subject of WWII which focuses on British diplomatic blundering. Explain the Holodomor. Explain to them that it was the Soviet Union, our “friend,” that was invading everyone if that’s the standard for “evil.”
So there are plenty of double standards to poke at in order to wear down this narrative that is ultimately used to deny Europeans their identity. But I think this sort of a “backdoor” makes the front and center Holocaust seem like a sideshow. Because the Holocaust only has the power it does because people have accepted all sorts of false premises about what the war was about in the first place. These premises and not the Holocaust itself constitute the “soft underbelly” (to evoke Churchill) of the “Germans (and by extension white people) are evil” narrative.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
UFASP’s analysis of the foundations of the Holocaust – see how we are adopting THEIR formulation? singular, capitalization of a proper noun – seems somewhat challenging to apply to our political future.
People have been trying for years – Rudolf, Faurisson, Duke, others – all with a spectacular lack of effect in the citizenry. The easiest rebuttal is to simply address the certainty and exactitude of the six million claim “Are you SURE it was EXACTLY six million who were deliberately killed? It could not have six million and ONE? Were they all killed, or did at least one die of natural causes?”
People do not worry about the Holocaust. People worry about the matters of Form – lowering of standard of living – and do not address the matters of Substance – the de facto Dispossession of them from their country their ancestors built up from dirt.
If memory serves, the merest hint by Buchanan that WWII was “unnecessary” required the Other Side calling out Niall Ferguson for rebuttal, in a debate sponsored by The Economist.
This treads on a mythos that serves many interests, and not merely the Jews.
There are more effective places in which we can place our efforts.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
“People have been trying for years – Rudolf, Faurisson, Duke, others – all with a spectacular lack of effect in the citizenry.”
Well, I also think the fact that those names exist within the time period that they do has something to do with this perception of them being ineffective. The judicious views about WWII that many in these circles advocate simply were never going to reach a critical mass during the 1970s or 80s. The spiritual climate was too certain and hostile. Reaching a point of critical mass at even this point in time is a statistical impossibility and this, I believe, has something to do with this perceived ineffectiveness of hammering away at the narrative. But the efforts work in a cumulative way just as getting people to come around on white identity works in a cumulative way.
Now, I don’t think it’s something that one needs to go into to get someone to come around on whiteness, but once a person starts to come around on the basics of race (the AmRen position), the WWII narrative will likely need to be addressed in at least some way. Especially if Ernst Junger and Savitri Devi are going to shape a movement’s meta-politics. I don’t think we can just pretend that it’s possible to not chip away at the narrative in some capacity if we want to have “Nazi” books on our shelves. The two go hand in hand.
It’s all an effort to build toward something the way I see it. I think the ice will thaw with each wave. That Pat Buchanan even wrote the book that he did as a television personality says a lot. Even his timid assertions of mere fact would have been unthinkable for a network guy twenty years ago. I’m not saying that Hitler and the Nazi regime will ever become lionized (and perhaps they shouldn’t be), but the unique stigma emanating from them for being racialized will seem harder to condemn and that is really what should be the motivation for attacking the current reading of WWII (which really is Civil Rights on steroids). And when the current moral certitude melts from an individual, he by default moves toward a state of mind where he is perhaps more willing to view the conflict in an open-minded way. That’s how it worked with me.
The reason “White Advocacy” has not gone anywhere since April 1945 is simple.
When you lose a war, you suffer for a long time the consequences of your defeat — especially if your defeat was crushing and absolute. The fate of conquered civilizations, in the past, was enslavement or the establishment of a protectorate/colony more respectful of individual liberties.
Since April 1945, Western countries are not free, but live under a Jewish protectorate, where everything is allowed as long as it does not threaten those in power. Hence the judicial and extrajudicial persecutions of “WNs” and the total black-out of politically incorrect ideas in the authorized medias (http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Lizenzzeitung is still in place, and works marvelously well).
The only practical difference is that instead of an authoritarian model of government, we have a universal democracy. Universal democracy brings one small inconvenience to rulers (they need to make more efforts of propaganda and censorship), but one big advantage (it abolishes the possibility of violent revolts by creating legitimacy).
The question is, how do we break off this protectorate? There is, to my mind, enough evidence to conclude it is stupidity to try doing it via universal democracy, and hubris to try doing it via violent methods. The system has been locked down.
We need another way, such as economic and physical separatism, but “White Advocacy” movements are rarely interested in finding it. They are too busy wondering why they are persecuted, trying to create awareness in the apathetic masses, and yelling at Black people. Archetype of what I’m describing: Stormfront.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Deviance in blockquote:
We begin by constructively disengaging from the System, laying the foundation for a new people, a new nation. William Lind discussed this in general terms in his analysis of how a new conservatism could come into being, all in an “apple pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
Most WN/”White Advocacy” types are inept nihilists, and waste their time, and money, wondering why no one pays attention to them, no one follows their Great Plan for the Future? Oh, that’s right.
They have no Plan For The Future. In fact, they have no Plan at all. They are simply reactive, and spend their time complaining to (Mommy?) whoever they think will listen. No one listens; at least, no one that matters, or ever will matters, listens.
That takes us to the only Plan that has even the most remote chance of actually working. Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic offers us an overarching theme, an analytical model that can be applied at all levels of society, and all in an “apple pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
The easiest place to start is to send money to counter-currents, each and every month.
One place to start is household Bible studies, using the anointed separatist Bible from the christian separatists website. This opens the door to home churches, and home teaching develops easily into home schooling. From there, a church can be formed, and, in time, a network of ethnocentric economic and political organizations can develop, openly, freely and organically. From these little acorns, might oaks can grow.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Dear Mr. Johnson,
Splendid article. Any criticism or nit-picking is undeserved. The fact of the matter is, we no longer have the luxury. By 1939, any luxury afforded polemical whites was precious. And now, though our approaches to the preservation of our race may differ, solidarity must be forged at all costs, otherwise I can’t help but think that we write expressly to entertain. It will be remembered that our glory was in our actions: It is now incumbent upon us to resort to violence after the model of which Louis Beam was a proponent — Leaderless Resistance.
It is not enough any longer to merely look the part or to emulate the hyper-erudition of our enemies. We have reached the upper limits of the services that debate may render; that talk may render; that scholarship may render. Which is not to argue that scholarship will not have a place when once more freedom has been wrested from the grasp of the Dissimulator. But now a battle must be waged beyond the boundaries of our intellects — a battle from which most of us will not come back, that you may continue to write. In peace.
This is Les Temps du Loup…
Yours,
Declan Angus Merriman
Actually, if one is serious about using violence for political ends, it is imperative to account for the importance of the cultural and social base needed to support violence. If one considers guerrilla or terrorist movements which have had some measure of longevity or success, one will note that their partisans do not spontaneously develop, nor do groups operate in a cultural vacuum. Groups like the Baader-Meinhof Gang in Western Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, and the Weather Underground in the U.S. emerged out of the subculture of the extreme left in those countries. The former would be unthinkable without the latter. Similarly, ethnic separatist groups have had some kind of cultural and social base within their autochtonous and diaspora communities.
White nationalists should spend more time reading about the history of political movements than watching movies in which the hero takes on impossible odds and wins. As Randall Collins rightly emphasises in Violence: A Micro-sociological Perspective (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), very few persons are actively violent, and ever fewer persons are competent at violence. If a movement is to use violence effectively, it needs to both reduce the inhibitions against violence, and raise the competence with which violence is wielded, thereby increasing its scale (i.e. its magnitude, extent, and duration) and its effectiveness. It must both incite acts of violence within a narrow circle as well as legitimize its acts of violence within a larger circle.
Lone wolf terrorism will get one shot down like a mad dog, and such acts will be regarded as criminal rather than political.
“The conviction that one has the right to use even the most brutal weapons always goes hand in hand with fanatical faith in the necessity of the victory of a revolutionary new order upon this earth. A movement that is not fighting for such high aims and ideals, will therefore never resort to the most extreme means.”
— Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, p. 597)
Greg, the issues were black and white if you believe that race is all that’s worth living for. Evidently, most people thought there was more to life than just race, especially so as ever more exciting technological developments began to occur at rapid pace (degrees of change in one lifetime that previously required several generations). Since race, in this view, is merely a part of life (rather than the sum total of life), all this made the race issue complex. Describing the issue as complex doesn’t necessarily excuse those who could or should have foreseen what would eventuate — after all, what good is it to gain the world but lose your race? — it just is what it is.
Don’t know if it’s worth posting here, but here it is:
” Is miscegenation the future of America?”
“No.
The White race will not be mixed out of existence by a long shot.
That is not to say that certain Whites will not race-mix, but if you look at them dispassionately, these are socially challenged people who have been found lacking by the opposite sex, so they they lower their standards and hook up with Non-Whites who want White partners for reasons varying from light-skin fever to raising the IQ of their children to getting one over on the White patriarchy.
Extreme White male race mixers tend to favor Asian females and extreme White female race mixers tend to favor Black males, but even the majority of race-mixers are drawn to people who have some White phenotype evident. The vast majority of race-mixers in this country have hooked up with Mestizos and I’m not talking about the short, squat, Indian looking Mestizo, I’m talking about those who look more Mediterranean in appearance.
However, I predict that vast majority of Whites are going to continue to frustrate the miscegenation maniacs by doing what they do now. Pay a lot of lip service to The Diversity, yap about how they either approve of or have no problem with interracial marriage, but only socialize with, marry, and have offspring with other Whites.
I also predict that not only will Whites be around a century or two from now, but they will virtually all be composed of racial realists who will look back on this time at best as a social experiment that went tragically awry to at worst a time of temporary racial insanity among Whites. Either way, the White liberal will go the way of the dodo bird.”
“The White race will not be mixed out of existence by a long shot.
That is not to say that certain Whites will not race-mix, but if you look at them dispassionately, these are socially challenged people (…)”
You don’t understand do you?
Maybe reading Count Gobineau or L-F Céline may help you.
Hint: if only two people race mix in a country of ten million souls, it is already time to switch on extremely loud alarm sirens. Because if men can resist the charms of a pretty Negress, they resist with much more difficulty the charms of a pretty mestizo, quadroon, octoroon, quintroon, or hexadecaroon. The “bouncing” then begins… and you get Spain, Portugal or South America.
[self-correction]
*Maybe reading Count Gobineau or L-F Céline could help you* is a more grammatically correct sentence.
[/]
Note the quotation marks, meaning it wasn’t my post. But thanks for your good message.
You mentioned Portugal, Spain, South America. I suppose you could add Southern Italy, & perhaps Greece & India & Ancient Egypt.
There is a book that talks about that subject:
http://www.barnesreview.org/white-america-the-american-racial-problem-as-seen-in-a-worldwide-perspective-and-lincoln%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s-negro-policy-p-548.html?cPath=80_72
I quote an item that supports your view:
White America’s theme is two-fold: First, that the racial destruction of the white race is inescapable in time whenever there is the substantial presence of another race; and, second, that civilization itself cannot survive that destruction.
I took my family to a social event this afternoon and was sickened when I noticed a blond woman of about 19 or 20 with her arms draped around a negro male about the same age. What made it even worse was her father, mother and siblings were present. By all appearances, her parents were approving. They were beaming as if she had a European prince on her arm. Seeing a normal looking, middle-class White family welcoming the affections of a negro toward their daughter with open arms was a grotesque sight. Both Jewish cultural influence and a deep pathology within the White psyche are to blame.
There is a young boy in my children’s youth orchestra. He looks white, even plays the trumpet.
His mom is white and dad is half Chinese-half Polynesian (from Hawaii).
If I had not personally met the dad I would not have known.
This is the problem! My children have friends who “look white” however are part asian, half-half mestizo, or one quarter black (half white/black parent). They become interested in the opposite sex at a younger age and flirt more aggressively than whites. White girls are taught to be more aloof and chaste, boys chase you. White boys don’t know how to woo any more, don’t chase girls because of low testosterone levels (soy, plastics) so WOW or porn is easier fun. Disaster! (And the degenerating discourse amongst our kind that usually ends in how bad the modern white woman is, oh my)
A few white girls have learned that to compete you need to show more fair skin (skimpier clothes) to garner attention from the white boy.
A friend’s child brags that she is Irish and calls other children racist when they point out her mom is Asian from Taiwan. She so strongly identifies that she is “white” what do you think she will chase when she dates? (Ask any Navy man about those women and their aggressiveness (sucky, sucky GI))
When these children have children, with future whites, no white person will know unless they meet the grandparents of these future perspective spouses. Who does that today?
The area (affluent, upper middle class, outside of DC) I live in is very mixed (white man, asian wife) (white man, half black wife) (white man, mestizo wife) (white man, jewish wife) (white woman, professional black man) (white woman, affluent mestizo husband) and becoming more so everyday. It makes everything more complex and difficult to gauge for children when they date and parents do not discuss anything with their children until it is too late (if at all). Oddly, parents are afraid to discuss realities with their child, or else they don’t care about carrying on their proud ancestry.
At a pool I saw a beautiful young blonde (you could tell she was old stock from New York) with her “tan” “white” handsome, tall boyfriend. He was white until I saw his mom and sisters. They looked middle eastern Semitic (mixed) and grandma looked very light skin black.
So yes, you could believe we are cleansing the gene pool of the crazies. However our children will end up paying the price when they marry those mixed genes and have children who may not look “just right” depending on how the DNA aligns. They simply won’t know better. They can not tell what is what, like the blonde girl. Not their fault.
I have seen two “white people” with that dull look in their eyes who have a child with light yellowish skin and coarse, frizzy hair. (West Virginia (due to civil war devastation) and New York). Genes are a funny thing and you don’t know what you get in a mixed up diverse society. (I travel)
I am certain people in Egypt and India and Rome thought the same thing as they watched the rising tide before they were swamped and lost their civilizations. Unfortunately this time there is no nation to run to; no well spring of people to repopulate and bring future greatness and beauty.
This is the last stand. And based on the past… (others have the advantage, trying to keep white clean is difficult)
The Israeli lobby has become too obvious, we’re a reaching the end game of jewish power in the USA.
Do you think that one of the properties of guilt is a belief in original sin as taught by Christianity?
This is a great, concise piece, Greg.
I have a few minor criticisms (semantics, really):
I disagree. While most whites have relatively less power than their leaders, they are far from powerless. Every white person has the power to influence those around him or her. That is not powerless. As Horus likes to say, the Jews “have created a sense of common oppression among non-victims.”
Are we victims in the sense that we have had crimes committed against us and we cannot individually stop it? Yes. However, we are not “victims” in the sense that we DO have the choice to exercise power on our own behalf, on our people’s behalf. We’ve just been trained to think we don’t have any power, just like a tiger trained to do tricks by a trainer. When Horus repeats over and over again that they, “have created a sense of common oppression among non-victims,” he’s trying to get whites out of the victim mindset of powerlessness, pessimism, and inaction.
Obviously, there’s a difference in audience for C-C than there is for Stormfront. One message is not appropriate for the others. Counter-Currents is not a website geared towards the average White Joe. This is not the place to repeat mindless propaganda aimed at White Joe. Even so, intellectuals are no less susceptible to falling into the traps of powerlessness, pessimism, and inaction. So while we should be–and are–more frank about our situation on websites like C-C, we should also try to avoid language that doesn’t serve our best interests.
More semantics:
(1). is true, and can only be true for a minority of White Nationalists. Yes, it should be the goal of everyone who is…intellectually gifted enough to do that kind of research. But White Joe isn’t, and he needs to be led by people who do. White Joe doesn’t need to understand it at its root if he has been given generally true heuristic models to follow by those who do understand the problem to its root.
The same goes for, (2). except that White Nationalists in leadership positions need to understand when it is appropriate to present and push certain things. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and you’re not going to unbrainwash people in a day either. For instance, IF I believed Christianity were a cause of our predicament, I would not try to convert White Christian Joes to non-Christian beliefs because that’s a politically stupid move. IF I believed that were the case, I would either promote Positive Christianity, or at least a message that would not shut down Christan Joes from the core of my message.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it is very hard to create a model that works universally for all White Nationalists. WNs aren’t equal in ability, intelligence, asceticism, will-to-power, articulation, so on and so forth. But they all (with a few exceptions) have a place and a niche to fill. They should all be utilized. We can’t afford not to.
Basically, I think like 1 and 2 are generally appropriate to White Nationalists on C-C and 3 is the only real universal one, as it is the most basic (as un-idealistic as that may sound).
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I don’t think we disagree on anything of substance, just matters of emphasis.
Posted April 13, 2012 at 1:34 pm
I want to focus on the bigger, more fundamental questions: who the Jews are, what they are up to, and the real roots of their power over our minds.
Even if every jot and tittle of holocaust lore were entirely factual, right down to the truckloads of babies dumped into pits of fire (somewhere near the camp swimming pool, no doubt), it does not follow that Jews get a free pass to screw the rest of the human race until the sun blows up.
If you get to the root of why whites accept that morally absurd non-sequiter, and work on that problem, then our people’s minds will be free.
——————–
I think it’s plain why Whites tolerate jewish power and lies. They’ve been intimidated through massive guilt by the holohoax propaganda machine. Whites are scared stiff about being accused of being anti-semitic, because of that. Kind of like being accused of being a witch in the middle ages.
Any discussion about race, WN or similar with ‘unaware’ Whites will eventually lead to the jew question (JQ). That leads to the, ‘what about the holohoax?’ question, either explicit or implied. I don’t think convoluted nuanced replies are acceptable here. WNs need to be able to prove clearly that the jewish holohoax did not occur.
The fundamental JQ, that the man in the street considers settled, is that the holohoax was real and therefore why are these ‘neo-nazis’ claiming otherwise?
So what should the WN answer to that question be? Your answer is:
—————
Greg Johnson
Posted April 13, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink
I understand your argument, and I wish the revisionists well. But based on the points that I have made above, as well as simple division of labor, revisionism is not part of what we do.
———-
I just don’t get this attitude that Revisionism is ‘not part of what we do.’ It reeks of avoidance, of a light dismissal of the core of jewish brainwashing, this psych warfare on Whites.
Can you briefly tell us your view on whether the holohoax happened or not?
Your argument is transparently circular. It boils down to the claim that whites believe Jewish lies because they believe in the holocaust, which on your own premises is just more Jewish lies.
You get close to the truth when you use the word intimidation. Jews can make us believe their holocaust stories because of their power in politics and the media, a power that pre-existed WW II. They also have the power to sell the holocaust because of our people’s bible-bred moral masochism and superstition about Jews. The Jews could do an about face on the holocaust tomorrow and would still have their power over our minds. That is why I liken the holocaust to the red cape that the matador waves. I prefer to charge the matador, not the cape. The holocaust is not the core of Jewish brainwashing. It is not even close.
Do you seriously believe that white freedom depends on the ability to refute the holocaust? I think that is an absurd criterion of proof, which effectively renders white advocacy impossible. When the holocaust comes up as a justification for illegitimate Jewish power, it is far more decisive and elegant to point out that no matter what some Jews suffered in WW II, that does not entitle other Jews to abuse other people today. When the holocaust comes up to stigmatize legitimate white ethnic interests, one simply has to point out that the holocaust no more discredits white nationalism than the Gulag discredits socialism. The whole Jewish scam rests on a transparent logical non-sequiters. Their conclusions simply do not follow.
As for my own views of the holocaust: Honestly, I don’t really know. There are enough proven lies and grossly implausible claims to make me a skeptic. But I don’t have the time or the interest to follow all the scholarship which would be necessary to arrive at a really informed opinion on the matter. Fortunately, I don’t have to.
I recommend Katana, Lew and others to read the The Jewish Strategy by Revilo P. Oliver, Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed and The Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche.
Their Power goes before the Holocaust, Freud, Marx, Rothschild, the Sabbateans, the Khazars and Christianity. It’s documented since the days of the Roman province of Egypt in Alexandria that jews wanted more and more privileges at the expenses of the goys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegyptus_(Roman_province)
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Dalton-Nietzsche.html
http://archive.org/details/TheJewishStrategy
http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/index.htm
http://www.martindillon.net/work4.htm
If Jews, not whites, are mainly responsible for our situation (contrary to what every thinker associated with the Nouvelle Droite and the Conservative Revolution argues), then what’s the purpose of metapolitics?
More like, what’s the point of the Nouvelle Droite and the Conservative Revolution?
Both of the above questions are poorly defined and present false dichotomies. For one thing, metapolitics is a technique, not a specific doctrine. For another thing, one needn’t regard the doctrines of the Nouvelle Droite, the Conservative Revolution, or any other school of thought as ones to which nothing can be added or taken away, as doctrines which must be accepted or rejected in their entirety.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Michael O’Meara in blockquote:
This is a skillful question, that leads to several compelling issues. I would like to begin by citing what Greg Johnson said in the topic piece:
Greg Johnson in blockquote:
This lays the beginning of the foundation for the metapolitical project, starting with you, personally, in all your words and deeds. Most people simply cower from the unflinching honesty such an approach requires. I have asked, repeatedly, here and on other fora, for people to describe the world outside their bedroom windows in the year 2050. Only two even remotely gave it a try, because they lived lives that were lacking in intent, and were not grounded to a metapolitical purpose.
In sort, the all-but-universal answer was, “Mommy, I’m scared by the monsters under the bed, and the monsters in the shadows. Can I live in your basement for the next seventy years or so?” That pretty much encapsulates most self-identified White Nationalist thinkers, and our pathetically inactive, and certainly ineffective, “activists.”
(The easiest answer is to send money to counter-currents, each and every month. Hell, let Greg go into the cave after the Shadow Monsters, while we cheer him on from a safe distance. Cash works just fine. PayPal and Amazon also work just fine.)
*snip*
THIS is the phrase that pays. Our System was developed on such philosophical and Cultural foundations as to make it all too easy for Judaism to easily control from within. This implies the Solution requires a new metaphysical perspective, in the fulfillment of metapolitical duty.
*snip*
Precisely. The foundations are antithetical to Judaism. However, the work derived from the application of those foundations established a System perfectly established for Judaism to occupy, and control, the commanding heights of the Culture, the Politics, and the Economy.
This succinctly addresses the issue Peter Shank addressed with his most astute observation: If all of the people you identiy as being The Problem – Jews, Mexicans, Illegals, whatever – ALL disappeared tomorrow, what would you do? WHY aren’t you doing that now? NOTHING is topping you.
And that ties us back to the Dark Aspect of the Jewish Question:
As Greg Johnson has demonstrated, Jews aren’t mainly responsible for our fallen state.
WE ARE, and dealing with that Issue is the key to regaining effectiveness peroanlly, tribally, and Racially.
So many of us have focused on the Jewish Question to the willful exclusion of answering Peter Shanks Question – “What THEN?” – and this is painfully obvious.
Past a certain point, we know what we need to know about the Jewish question, AND Judaism, AND how it all applies to us. Further concerns with the Jewish Question are activity without productivity, and without addressing the Duty of what you choose to DO ABOUT IT. (HT: Harold Covington)
Our Deep Challenges are twofold:
(1) Undoing the damage the “Classical” Foundations of Western Civilization have done to Civilization, and
(2) Being effective in binding our lives to the metapolitical purpose.
An excellent first step is sending money to counter-currents regularly.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
I don’t think that European New Right is exactly honest about our situation, for legal reasons and perhaps others, and because American power is the primary way that Jewish power operates in Europe, the ENR can safely and legally attack American power as a proxy for attacking Jewish power.
I don’t think that my article amounts to the claim that Jews are “mainly responsible.” They are, rather, latecomers exploiting pre-existing weaknesses in our culture. They are the cancer that comes after decades of smoking, the bout of pneumonia that comes to kill the person whose immune system has been ravaged by AIDS. But the only way for the patient to recover is to deal first with the crisis that it killing him and then to work on the underlying systemic weaknesses.
Your sense of “metapolitics” seems analogous to dealing with the underlying systemic weaknesses. My view of metapolitics encompasses those as well as the Jewish question, the demographic crisis, the environmental crisis: all of the proximate threats. And since the JQ is the most obfuscated, and the most essential, it gets priority.
Now how do ‘we’ go about getting a Greg Johnson (and others) out front?
This kind of philosophy and talent needs to be spread.
America is ready for the truth, and more importantly – ready to deal with the truth.
I’m flattered. But I’m already “out front” — which is the last thing I ever envisioned for myself, for it is FAR outside of my comfort zone. What we really need is people behind us, meaning donors and regular writers.
@B.Z.
“Now how do ‘we’ go about getting a Greg Johnson (and others) out front?
This kind of philosophy and talent needs to be spread.”
BZ, While it’s extremely important for Greg to be writing articles which bring the reality of White Genocide to our attention, and not pulling any punches about some of the people behind it, what is more still important is that we don’t wait for someone else to “get out front” and spread this message.
I spread it daily, but not on this blog. I take it to where thousands of others who are cowering in the corner in fear of being called “racist”, and let them know that “anti-racist” is just a code word for anti-White.
It’s extremely important to have the right words, and the right talking points, and then get out there and spread the messages that fight the anti-White narrative.
Rather than wait for Greg to do it for you, why don’t you learn how to do it yourself, and join the rest of us who have moved beyond just reading about it, but are spreading it around?
The battle-front isn’t limited to writing excellent essays like this, it’s getting in the trenches and fighting the anti-White narrative, mano-a-mano, with real live anti-Whites. And it’s actually very invigorating to do this yourself. You’ll feel like one of the “300”, but this time we’re winning.
If you don’t know how to join in and fight this battle as one of the warriors, there’s plenty of help available at http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/ . Just go there, check out the SWARM and see what they’re up to. Feel free to ask questions. Announce that you’d like to get active, and ask where to begin. They’ll be glad to point you in the right direction.
But above all, please don’t expect Greg or anyone else to do it for you. We need ALL pro-Whites to be in the trenches, in whatever capacity they can be. We don’t need more leaders, we need more warriors.
I never asked for any of this. I was born in the late 1980’s and at this time the program of genocide against my race was well under way. I was forced into anti-White indoctrination centers and force fed the genocidal anti-White ideology. Even as a high school student I spoke out against it and defended my race from attack by anti-Whites. For this is was punished by the anti-White administrators. It was only after reading accounts of the psych warfare performed on POWs in Korea that I understood WHY I was ordered to write a letter of contrition for the horrible act of defending my race from defamation.
I HATE anti-Whites, they have mentally tortured me for my entire life. They are engaging in a genocide against us, doing everything they can to create a world whiteout Whites. They are monsters in human form and I wish to see them crushed.
I have no tolerance for anyone who says what was done to me and what is being done to my race is in any way “my fault.”
NO!
It is not “my fault.” It is the fault of anti-Whites of all races. Of course there are many White anti-Whites but don’t anyone dare lump me in with them. I am not one of them I do not identify with them. They are scum, I am not.
Greg Johnson
Posted April 14, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Permalink
Your argument is transparently circular. It boils down to the claim that whites believe Jewish lies because they believe in the holocaust, which on your own premises is just more Jewish lies.
——————–
I think you have boiled it beyond recognition. Whites believe in the holohoax, causing them not to dare criticize jews for fear of being labelled an anti-semite, aka, a ‘Nazi’.
‘They also have the power to sell the holocaust because of our people’s bible-bred moral masochism and superstition about Jews.’
Yes, but then there’s also wall to wall brainwashing.
‘The Jews could do an about face on the holocaust tomorrow and would still have their power over our minds. That is why I liken the holocaust to the red cape that the matador waves. I prefer to charge the matador, not the cape. The holocaust is not the core of Jewish brainwashing. It is not even close.’
The holohoax/red cape is the very thing that has Whites mesmerized. Telling bulls/Whites to ignore the red cape goes against their natures. Whites are accused of perpetrating the worst crime in history, of unparalleled evil! Of course the matador/jew is manipulating the bull/Whites. I’ve concluded that the red cape/holohoax has no substance and is an example of the Big Lie that jews specialize in. You seem in two contradictory minds in a sense, on the one hand saying that you are not sure whether the holohoax/red cape is real or not while also saying it doesn’t matter anyway and let’s focus on the matador/jew.
My contention is that if we would expose the red cape/ holohoax for what it is, a load of jewshit, then all those White bulls might start to see the matador/jew as the real enemy. Discredit the red cape/holohoax. Then Whites would be free to raise their voices. We live in a world where any criticism of jews eventually leads to Auschwitz.
‘Do you seriously believe that white freedom depends on the ability to refute the holocaust? I think that is an absurd criterion of proof, which effectively renders white advocacy impossible.’
It’s a necessary practical start, I feel. Your strident view on the holohoax is telling. Take a deep breath and plunge into revisionism. It’s refreshing in my experience.
‘As for my own views of the holocaust: Honestly, I don’t really know. There are enough proven lies and grossly implausible claims to make me a skeptic. But I don’t have the time or the interest to follow all the scholarship which would be necessary to arrive at a really informed opinion on the matter. Fortunately, I don’t have to.’
I think you do have to. Your position is like going to a gunfight with a peashooter.
Frankly, it’s surprising that you can’t find the time or interest to get to the bottom of the holohoax. There’s no need to become an expert (I’m certainly not) but rather just become informed enough that you are not in this ‘I don’t really’ limbo.
About one year ago I became aware of White Nationalism, through the writings of David Duke with his book ‘Jewish Supremacism’. Since then, in my spare time, I’ve informed myself on the holohoax.
Discredit the holohoax and WN can make major progress in the minds of average Whites. Ignore it and we are hobbled.
Anyway, I do appreciate what you are doing.
For the reasons stated above, I disagree.
Don’t you find it odd that the left world-wide does not pin all its hopes on Gulag revisionism?
What we need is our own state, free from the Jews, free from the non-whites. Once we have our own state and our own media we can raise a new generation of whites, every white couple should have 3x or more kids this should be encouraged. We need place to expand and grow (not a small little country like Israel) with nuclear weapons so w are able to defend ourselves from the anti-whites. Once this is done we are set really.
I totally agree.
I have studied the problem for a pretty long time and came to the conclusion that separatism was the only way out.
The problem is that the WN movement as a whole is too immature, too anarchistic (the “lone-wolf” mentality is actually a defect, not a quality), and too democrat in spirit to focus on this project.
You should review this new book from Washington Post-award winning reporter Colin Flaherty called “White Girl Bleed a Lot”: The Return of Race Riots to America and How the Media Ignore It which was published last month but hasn’t been publicized much in the media.
Here’s the site for the book and a blurb about it:
http://www.whitegirlbleedalot.com/
“Race riots are back.
Along with widespread racial crime and violence.
In hundreds of episodes in more than 50 cities since 2010, groups of black people are roaming the streets of America — assaulting, intimidating, stalking, threatening, vandalizing, stealing, shooting, stabbing, even raping and killing.
They go by different names: Flash mobs, flash robs, or as one social worker put it: Kids just “blowing off steam.”
But local media and public officials are silent. Crime is color blind, says a Milwaukee police chief. Race is not important, a Chicago newspaper editor says.
That denies the obvious: America is the most race conscious society in the world.
We learn that every day from black caucuses, black teachers, black unions, black ministers, black colleges, black high schools, black music, black moguls, black hair business owners, black public employees, black art, black names, black poets, black inventors, black soldiers.
Everything except black violent crime. That is Taboo.
Result: Few know about it. Fewer still are talking about it.
The list of cities under attack is long and getting longer — with some cities suffering dozens of attacks in the last year alone:
Almost as astonishing is the willingness of people in authority and in the media to deny it. Ignore it. Explain it away. Even condone and lie about it.
In Chicago, after weeks of racial violence where the newspapers refused to mention the crime was almost exclusively black gangs on individual whites, the Superintendent of the Police said he knew what was causing the violence: Sarah Palin.
A member of Congress from Chicago, Bobby Rush, said black violence in Chicago was routine and the only reason anyone was paying attention to the race riots in downtown Chicago was because it was it was black on white violence. This is a theme heard in Rochester, Washington, D.C., and dozens of other places: ‘What’s the big deal? This has been happening a long time in black neighborhoods.’
Congressman Rush is probably right. Which means this problem is hundreds of times worse than we think.”
Greg, how do we approach the naive white public, who has been conditioned to place jews on a pedestal, that jews are behind many of our problems in society. If we try to explain to the public the jews are the problem, many white listeners will repel and react by calling us ‘anti-semites’, etc.
Fortunately Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm have prepared a lot of our ground for us.
Don’t think of antisemitism as unpopular. Think of it as…pre-popular.
http://qkme.me/3otxgd