Counter-Currents
Nationalist propaganda depicting Italy and France expelling Austria from their borders.
3,818 words
There’s a cloud[1] over nationalism. As soon as you say that nations should put their own citizens and interests first, people immediately raise the specter of wars and genocides. Since the Second World War, National Socialism and the Holocaust are always evoked. But before the Second World War, anti-nationalists evoked the horrors of the First World War. Before that, it was the Napoleonic Wars, and before that catastrophes like the Seven Years’ War, the War of the Austrian Succession, the War of the Spanish Succession, the English Civil Wars, and the Thirty Years’ War.
I always bristled at the claim that the First World War was caused by nationalism. I was quick to point out that the main parties to that war were empires: Britain, France, Russia, Turkey, Austria-Hungary, and Germany. The same is true of the Napoleonic Wars. Beyond that, most of these other traumatic conflicts were not national but religious and dynastic. Why drag nationalism into it?
This is historically true, but it is really beside the point, because the essential objection remains unanswered. Whether we are dealing with an empire or a homogeneous ethnostate, putting your own state and its interests first supposedly leads inexorably to war. Thus we need to somehow transcend “nationalism.” The problem is not really nationalism, though. The problem is the willingness of any state to aggrandize itself by waging war against its neighbors. It is political predation.
There are basically two ways to prevent this.
One is a global government that abolishes all other sovereignties. There cannot be war between states if there is only one state. Global government is basically the idea of empire taken to the furthest extreme, for an empire gobbles up other sovereign entities. Basically, empires promise to end wars as soon as they have successfully warred with everyone around them. They promise to end the conflict that comes from diversity by becoming maximally diverse. Of course, the secret agenda of globalists is to do away with such diversity and create complete racial and cultural homogeneity.
The other option is called an intergovernmental organization (IGO), in which different sovereign states come together to preserve both peace and sovereignty. Contra Hobbes, there can be peace without an overarching power, and the thrust of international law and diplomacy since the seventeenth century has been to extend peace and reduce wars as much as possible.
In 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia gave us the modern idea of the sovereign state as the bearer of certain rights defined in international law. In 1713, the Treaty of Utrecht introduced the “balance of power” as a way of preserving peace. In 1815, the post-Napoleonic Congress of Vienna created the Concert of Europe to preserve the balance of power and suppress revolutionary movements.
In 1920, the League of Nations was founded after the horrors of the First World War to promote the collective security of its members (an attack on one was to be treated as an attack on all), conflict resolution between members, disarmament, and economic cooperation.
The League of Nations was the brainchild of US President Woodrow Wilson, whose Fourteen Points (1918) envisioned a post-war European order that reduced ethnic conflicts by promoting the self-determination of peoples and protections for ethnic minorities.
The League of Nations failed to prevent another world war, so statesmen went back to the drawing board and came up with the United Nations (1945), NATO (1949), and eventually the European Union (1993) to promote the same ends: peace through collective security, diplomacy, and economic cooperation.
Global government and intergovernmental organizations are fundamentally incompatible, for global government must cancel the sovereignty of individual states, whereas IGOs preserve sovereignty. But advocates of global government often regard IGOs like the European Union and the United Nations as ways to coax sovereign states to gradually surrender their powers, until they dissolve into a world state. Thus nationalists have a natural distrust of IGOs, even though nationalists need to make them work if they are to avoid the perils of global government on the one hand and fratricidal war on the other.
Dispelling the Cloud
How do we win? We win by having more power than our enemies. How do we manage that? By getting more people fighting for us and fewer people fighting against us. All people aren’t equal, of course, so we should begin by converting people who are more virtuous, intelligent, wealthy, and connected than the average. Today, our primary way to convert people is persuasion. Not everyone is persuadable, of course, but that just means we must work harder converting the ones who are.
The main impediment to conversion is the cloud over nationalism. We must dispel it. This is why in essays like “New Right vs. Old Right” I affirm universal ethnonationalism and repudiate the totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide associated with interwar fascist movements, which I call the Old Right.[2]
White Nationalists, like all nationalists today, are obligated to show that our nationalism will not lead to catastrophic increases in violence. Basically, we must solemnly swear not to start World War III, genocide other groups, and so forth. If we can’t do that, we are not going to be taken seriously. If we reject this obligation, we will only increase opposition to our cause, perhaps fatally.
Many White Nationalists will indignantly reject this obligation. But in your heart, you know I’m right. So let’s examine your heart.
White Nationalism is primarily a response to white demographic decline and non-white migration into our homelands. Unless these trends are halted, whites will cease to exist as a distinct race.
We are a dying race, and any political outlook that does not begin with that fact is living in the past. It is not serious politics.
To a dying race, the history of European warfare should be a revolting spectacle: millennia of fratricide, usually for idiotic reasons. Literature that glorifies war should be regarded as distasteful. Monuments to our people’s victories over other whites should evoke sadness as well as pride. Ideologies of perpetual war should be greeted with suspicion.
You don’t have to share these tastes, but at least you need to understand them, because they are at the core of our own people’s opposition to nationalism.
Yes, some things are worse than war, such as suffering genocide. But most wars were not fought from such bitter necessities. They were senseless luxuries that we can no longer afford.
Indeed, White Nationalists routinely bemoan such “brother wars.” You yourself have probably done so. So how do you propose to prevent them?
White Nationalists need to answer this question for our own purposes. But by answering it, we can do much to dispel the cloud over nationalism.
Our starting points are (1) the existence of multiple white peoples and (2) the aim of reducing conflicts between them. Again, there are two basic answers: imperialism (One White State) or some sort of intergovernmental organization of sovereign white states.
Imperialism isn’t a good way to keep peace between white peoples, because to build an empire, you first have to make war against everybody else. Beyond that, One White State would encompass the full diversity of white peoples within a single political system. But don’t we believe that diversity within the same political system is a source of weakness and conflict? If so, then One White State would increase rather than decrease ethnic animus between white peoples. Of course, the secret agenda of imperialists is to do away with such conflict by destroying any diversity that impedes them.[3]
Thus the only serious option is an intergovernmental organization of white states.
The White Summit
Imagine that you are the leader of a white state, gathered together with the leaders of other white states, to reduce the scourge of war and promote peace and prosperity instead. The goal is to make white brotherhood real. To do this, we must find a form of association that allows every white state to celebrate rather than fear the strength, prosperity, and differentness of other white states.
Let’s call it the White Summit. It should be convened in the Swiss Alps, on a clear winter day, 6,000 feet above sea level and much higher above petty politics. Europe should be visible in all directions.
You would face two basic questions: How do you organize yourselves, and what common order do you create for your nations?
If you maintain your own state’s sovereignty, then you cannot create an overarching political order among yourselves. Fortunately, there are other models.[4] For instance, collegial organizations consist of individual agents united by common goals without a higher authority who commands them. Such organizations can elect individuals to carry out certain projects, but they are commissioners with delegated powers not leaders to whom you surrender your autonomy.
The goal of such a college is to find a body of rules that all members can live under. When such rules are agreed upon, each leader binds his nation to follow them. Since there is no overarching authority to enforce these rules, the only sanction for breaking them is that other nations will no longer be bound by them in dealing with the violator.
Sovereignty
Let’s deal with the basics first. You would not be invited to the White Summit if you were not recognized as the head of a sovereign state, and by sitting down at the table, you recognize your peers as the heads of sovereign states as well.
Every sovereign state wishes to preserve its sovereignty. If a state wishes its neighbors to respect its sovereignty, it should extend the same courtesy to them. For instance, if Ruritania attacks its neighbors, the other states will no longer be obligated not to attack Ruritania.
But why should unequal states deal with one another as equals? Why, in particular, should strong states not force weak states to do their bidding, regardless of the interests and consent of the weaker? Isn’t the law of nature that the strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must?
In a world in which states can both fight and cooperate, states that fight will find fewer and fewer partners that are willing to cooperate with them. Thus, even from a purely self-interested point of view, it might be more advantageous simply to cooperate rather than fight. Even the strongest state is stronger if it can count on other states rallying to its side in times of war. Even the richest state is richer if it can count on other states trading with it in times of peace.
Beyond that, in a state of nature, in which force rules, there is a sense in which all states are equal. Thomas Hobbes offers a very cynical, materialistic argument for human equality: even the strongest man can be killed by weaker men working together. We are equal, because we can all be killed.
The same is true of states. There is no state on Earth so powerful that it can resist the rest of the world united against it. Even a nuclear deterrent will not suffice if your enemies hate you enough to risk destroying themselves to bring you down. Nations are equal, because they can all be destroyed.
This points to the folly of defining state sovereignty in materialistic terms as economic autarky and invulnerability. If that is sovereignty, then no nation is sovereign, because no nation is fully autarkic and invulnerable.
If this is true, the leaders of big states need to climb down off their high horses and listen, really listen, to what their colleagues from San Marino and Lichtenstein have to say.
After the Thirty Years’ War, the Treaty of Westphalia did not define sovereignty as material autarky and invulnerability. Indeed, the war provided ample evidence that such sovereignty is an illusion.
Instead, sovereignty was defined as a moral concept. Sovereign states are seen as moral persons, meaning that they have certain rights under international law. Sovereign states control their internal affairs. They are expected not to interfere in the internal affairs of their neighbors. They are regarded as equals under international law.
This concept of sovereignty is a norm, not a fact. Norms of behavior don’t make you immune to violations on the material plane. Sovereign states are attacked all the time. Being vulnerable to attack doesn’t make you non-sovereign. If this were true, no state would be sovereign because no state is invulnerable. The norm of sovereignty simply means that it is wrong to attack a sovereign state, and that such a state is a victim entitled to redress from the aggressor and the aid of other sovereign states.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Against Imperialism here.
Now, if you wish to cling to the material definition of sovereignty, I suppose you could draft a 30-year plan to create a truly autarkic economy and perhaps a superweapon that would make you invincible in battle and impervious to attack.
But why bother, when every other country in the world is willing to treat you as if you have already accomplished those goals, and all they ask in return is for you to extend them the same courtesy?
None of this implies, of course, that you should neglect self-defense and self-sufficiency as backups, in case international order breaks down.
Enmity is always possible, but that doesn’t mean it is always actual. Thus you should also make provisions for occasional outbreaks of friendship.
If you like games, you can understand normative sovereignty as a rule. If you and others play by that rule, you can enjoy the blessings of peace and friendship.
Collective Security
Since our goal is peace between sovereign states, we need to make it a rule to deal with one another through diplomacy and trade, not force. We also need to prevent any backsliding into violence.
First, we must cultivate friendship. Thus white states need an intergovernmental organization to promote amity and resolve conflicts without violence.
Second, since enmity is always possible, we must also be prepared to deter violence through counter-violence. Thus white states need a collective security agreement so that if one of them is attacked, all of them respond in force. Such a collective security agreement should be sufficient to deter most violence against white countries from inside or outside the white bloc.
Ethnonationalism
Thus far, we have spoken merely of a college of sovereign white states. But White Nationalists believe in the sovereignty of peoples, of nations understood as ethnic groups. Many European states, however, are multiethnic. Moreover, since ethnic diversity within the same political system is a source of conflict, white states need to deal with the diversity problem. Here we can appreciate the relevance of Wilson’s principles of the self-determination of peoples and protections for ethnic minorities.
Self-determination needs to be understood as a right, not a duty. A duty is an obligation. A right is merely an option that you can exercise or not. But when you exercise your rights, others are obligated to get out of your way. When multiethnic states like Yugoslavia fall apart, other white states need to prevent bloodshed by (1) upholding the right of subject peoples to their own homelands and (2) doing everything they can to effect peaceful and amicable separation. However, multiethnic states like Switzerland, where everyone seems to get along, are under no obligation to split up.
Even after Europe remigrates its non-European populations, many European states will have long-standing European minority groups: Swedes in Finland, Finns in Sweden, Russians in Estonia, Hungarians in Romania, etc.
The presence of minority groups does not prevent a country from being an ethnostate, because being an ethnostate is primarily normative. Estonia’s constitution defines it as the homeland of the Estonian people, where their language and culture are normative, even though there is a substantial Russian minority.
Since every European nation has minorities, and its own people dwell as minorities in other European nations, it is in the interest of all Europeans to make the second-class citizenship of minorities as easy to bear as possible, consistent with maintaining the normativity of the dominant culture and the political power of the dominant group (in democracies, this means that the populations of politically enfranchised minorities cannot be too high).
This means respecting the basic human rights of all people you allow onto your soil. It means accommodating the cultural differences of minorities rather than pressuring them to assimilate. It also proscribes using the presence of minorities as fifth columnists for separatist or irredentist attacks on one’s neighbors. Such policies should head off the sorts of conflicts that lead to the failure of multiethnic states.
A League of White Nations
Let’s take stock. To save our race, whites need to reassert control over our countries and borders, turn around our demographic decline, and remigrate non-white colonists. In short, we need White Nationalism in every white nation.
To secure brotherhood and peace among white nations, we need an intergovernmental organization of sovereign white states that preserves their sovereignty while promoting cooperation, peaceful conflict resolution, the rights of minorities, and the self-determination of peoples. We also need to establish a collective security agreement, such that if any white state is attacked, all other white states rally to its defense. Since this is an organization of sovereign states, the only enforcement mechanism is reciprocity. If you extend these courtesies to others, they will extend them back to you. If not, not.
If this sounds like the League of Nations, the EU, or NATO, that’s because these organizations address genuine needs. They are hardly perfect. We could improve upon all of them. But something like them needs to exist. Let’s call our version the League of White Nations.
White Nations & the Rest of the World
How should a League of White Nations relate to the rest of the world? Here are a few suggestions.
First and foremost, the League’s collective security pact would deter non-white nations from attacking white nations. However, such a collective security pact creates a moral hazard if white countries are free to provoke non-white countries at will. Thus white collective security requires that we also shun predatory behavior directed at the rest of the world.
Second, the League would work together to protect white nations from non-white migrants and refugees. Since all nations can fall victim to wars and natural disasters, we need international rules governing refugees. But some countries are more prone to wars and accidents than others. If white countries take non-white refugees, there is no reason to expect reciprocity. Thus white countries are being penalized for being peaceful and secure. This must end. White refugees should be welcome in white countries. Non-white refugees need to stop in the first safe country, which is almost never a white country.
Third, the League should extend its security guarantees to white minorities living in non-white nations around the world. In the case of South Africa, where the Afrikaners have better claims on the land than the blacks, a League of White Nations should help Afrikaners set up a sovereign ethnostate.
Taking it Global
As a general rule, a League of White Nations would put white nations first.
But the age of European imperialism is over, and romanticizing it is as detached from reality as romanticizing wars between Europeans. Again, we are a dying race, not an expanding one. We need to secure our borders and future, not posture as conquerors.
Imperialism was never right, since it is murder and theft on a massive scale, and just as we don’t want it done to us, we should not do it to others. The economic case was always dubious, since we end up paying twice for resources: once in money and once in blood. It was self-defeating, since white countries are now being submerged by the backwash of their empires. And we can no longer get away with it, since China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have nuclear deterrents, and other non-white countries could rapidly secure them if need be.
The same arguments that support White Nationalism justify nationalism for non-whites as well. White Nationalism is just a species of universal ethnonationalism.
Yes, nations and races, like individuals, have natural preferences for their own. But that is universal as well.
Moreover, it is in our dying race’s best interest to pursue amity and trade with the rest of the world, provided they reciprocate, while always being prepared to repay violence with violence.
Yes, there is something farcical about African and Middle Eastern “nations” and “statesmen.” But we need their cooperation to ensure peace and prosperity, so we must play along with them.
Finally, there are genuinely global problems that require global cooperation. Thus we need global intergovernmental organizations and rules of conduct. But the rest of the world will not sit down with us unless we are willing to grant them the same courtesies that we want from them.
Perpetual Peace?
Will there ever be “perpetual peace”? That is unrealistic. The world will always be divided into us and them, thus violence will always be possible. But complete realism recognizes that peace and friendship are always possible as well. Fortunately, just as we can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can simultaneously pursue peace and prepare for war. Indeed, there is no contradiction between the two, because preparedness for war is one of the best guarantors of peace.
The inevitability of death has not deterred modern medicine and sanitation from dramatically reducing or eliminating some causes of death. In the same way, the abiding possibility of war should not deter us from trying to reduce its occurrence to the absolute minimum.
* * *
If White Nationalism is a serious political movement, we need to address these sorts of issues. The formula of White Nationalism plus universal ethnonationalism, intergovernmental organizations, and international law goes a long way to dispelling the cloud over nationalism.
Imagine laboring to defend a White Nationalist political philosophy. Imagine that you can credibly argue that White Nationalism would dramatically reduce rather than increase the amount of violence in the world. This would be a remarkable feat.
Now imagine proclaiming that this new political philosophy is a form of “Bonapartism.” When the English, Germans, and Russians balk at that, you assure them that their historical reservations are understandable but really beside the point, because you are offering a new form of Bonapartism shorn of all chauvinism and imperialism and dedicated instead to European brotherhood and peaceful coexistence.
I think most people would question your seriousness. Creating a White Nationalist society is already an uphill battle. So why add to your burden by dragging Napoleon into it? The same argument, of course, applies to Hitler.
Notes
[1] I am borrowing the figure of “the cloud” over nationalism from Jonathan Bowden, who featured it in his (alas unrecorded) speech in Atlanta in October of 2009.
[2] See the title essay in Greg Johnson, New Right vs. Old Right (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2014).
[3] For more on this issue see the title essay and associated debates in Greg Johnson, Against Imperialism (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2023).
[4] See my “Notes on Sovereignty and International Order” in Against Imperialism.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
98 comments
I will part ways with Hitler/NS for 14 words.
>> I will part ways with Hitler/NS for 14 words. <<
Don’t forget the 88 !
Seriously, if the 88 is Skinhead LARPing or means “Hollywood Hitler,” then yes, I agree that this part is better left out.
But the Truth is always the right answer, and if we are not always open to the study of Truth, then we lose at the starting gate.
Neither Hitler nor Napoleon were the Antichrist or whatever they were actually called by their enemies.
They weren’t Demigods either ─ any more than crucial figures like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton.
Currently there is no examination of the truth allowed with respect to the Austrian Gefreiter; it is the ADL version of history or none. That is fine for Jewish theologians like Prof. Deborah Lipstadt but it is flawed History.
Unless keeping the 88 officially means “Holy Holocaust,” then this is always going to be a sticking point for the advocacy of White Nationalism ─ at least any mainstream version of it poised for real power.
Keeping the 88 warm, at least on the rear stovetop, means that Joos will not control the finances of, nor the leadership of, White Nationalism. Maybe this time we actually learned some lessons from history.
I personally don’t have anything against Jews. Maybe a few can guardedly come into the big tent.
But if you want a movement driven by Bolshevism, Zionism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Class Struggle ─ or something else that might not yet even be invented that will be purposefully dedicated to sabotaging White Nationalism, then be my guest.
🙂
The 14 will always be more important than the 88, especially to attract newer and younger Whites to the cause thought I won’t shun the Joel Davises for their allegiances. Yesterday’s worlds were far more racio-ethnically homogenous. Whole new battlefield today.
Claims that Whites are dying out etc are just manifestations of defeatism. Imagine if by some miracle tomorrow “white supremacists” came to power in every country with a majority European population (from Russia to Europe to North America to Australia). It would immediately become a totally dominant power that would quickly subjugate the rest of the world. That this will not happen is due first and foremost to the terrible betrayal of our elites and the cultural, political and moral decay they have caused
No, it is just a sober analysis of what will happen if present demographic trends continue.
Nobody is going to subjugate nonwhite societies that have nuclear arsenals.
>> Nobody is going to subjugate nonwhite societies that have nuclear arsenals. <<
I am not an advocate of nuclear war anymore than 1964 candidate Barry Goldwater actually was ─ nuclear strategy and deterrence would open up an entire Library of tangents ─ but hard disagree.
LINK
I am not a fan of Kennedy/Johnson’s escalation of Brush Wars into Indochina to move the tripwire away from Berlin to the less-sensitive Third World, but it wasn’t necessary to nuke Hanoi to win. They could have at least blockaded Haiphong Harbor to cut it off from Soviet aid before escalating the counter-insurgency with conscripted hippies not going to school. Nixon finally did so in 1972.
Too much stock has always been given in the rhetoric that the Comm Bloc has nukes. Big deal.
As ruefully noted by retired Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis LeMay, who ran as George Wallace’s running mate in 1968, more bomb tonnage was uselessly dropped on Vietnamese jungle trails than dropped in World War II.
Gen. LeMay was widely misquoted about supposedly wanting to bomb the insurgents into the Stone Age.
🙂
Just a note on the nukes. They are not a magic bullet in that they can be destroyed before launch, and they can be destroyed after launch. And while right now even the most sophisticated defence systems can be saturated with ballistic missiles (Iran got many hits on Israeli air bases), the situation could change rapidly. Perhaps in a few decades orbital defences and advances in ground-based interceptor missiles change the situation so that a full exchange between superpowers (probably China and US) would still leave both states capable of continuing the war with conventional weapons and tactical nukes.
Articulated well! Thanks Greg.
Great article, well thought out, any ideas on how to address the flaws in Christianity (we do not have our own racial religion) and messianic figures that crop up from time-to-time? I am talking about religious leaders whom want to funnel endless wealth and resources into non-white countries on the pretexts of aid and conversion? 😇
Are you making a supposition that whites should have a “racial religion” that’s state mandated?
Not a state mandated religion, that would never work. It would be nice if we had an organic (homegrown) religion for the proles; not everybody is as philosophically inclined as some of the people on this website. Since we are never going to have our own racial religion like the jews (I wonder if theirs is state mandated) we are always going to have problems with “do-gooder” christians. 😎
Deiciders have a theocratic ethnostate. Even those who deviate from it pick judaic ideologies. So it is from above and below for them. (Well really from below, they are from the devil).
For all its supposed flaws (based on the leadership selling out and apostasizing, while also being pushed by heathen forces inside and out), rejecting Christianity has led to degenerate relativism and materialism. Even those few who retvrned to “old gods” soon degenerated into tumblr witches and naturist hippies and the like, since there are as many “old gods” and positive/negative interpretations of them to pick from, as there are human virtues and sins to either ascribe or fall into or both. That’s why at best, the non-Christians depended on state/imperator worship; and even that depended on the state/leader at hand. Not on Truth from above.
Regardless, whatever the white ethnostate citizenry ends up believing, such Truth from above must be respected, and its opposers banned and [redacted]. This, whether it’s heretical Christians that believe in subsidizing evil as opposed to simply being patient but firm, or whether it’s nonChristians that believe in giving themselves up to degeneracy because the particular “old god” or “natural force” or “human right” they believe enables them to be thus. After that removal of noxious influences is done, only then a polite and respectful theological debate among morally good but faithfully diverse citizenship may be had.
Whether one God/Ideal or set of gods/ideals must be imposed, or not, idk – probably must be. Same as in the political order, in the vaunted utopian “league of white nations” there will be big players that lead the rest, no matter how even and fair the league would be. Just like in multiethnic white states it is inevitable that the majority white tribe will have to lead to some degree the minority white tribes. The crux is, how benevolent yet firm this imposition of the elites and of the Ideal/s can be done, whether in political or religious realm.
“Regardless, whatever the white ethnostate citizenry ends up believing, such Truth from above must be respected, and its opposers banned and [redacted].”
This leads to the one true denomination burning all the others, and practically speaking the true denomination will be whichever one is most aggressive in burning the others.
As a race we gave that a good long try. It didn’t work out for the best.
I recommend a different morality. Every good creature, good of its kind, strives in its own way for the perpetuation of its own kind. (Even the sterile worker bee does her best for the hive and thus for the perpetuation of her kind of bees, and so she is a good creature,) Those who work for the destruction of their own blood, their own family, their own race, are not even good creatures let alone good human beings. We should strive to be good.
If you find yourself preparing to burn a relative in order to enforce some dogma about essences and substances, you have not attained Truth, rather you have gone mad.
Hard agree that we need a religion that supports white preservation (WP). Hard disagree that Christianity in its essence is the problem (or that its current monstrous iteration – “Christiberalism”, a more generalized version of “Holocaustianity” – constitutes real Christianity). What is needed is a deep theological investigation of Christianity to show its congruence with WP as understood by Greg Johnson in this essay. We must capture Christianity and reconceptualize it so that it is at least not hostile to WP (better, that it inclines towards WP). That is a far more promising route than either trying to create a new, prowhite religion whole cloth, or undermining the Faith to deconvert whites from it, which usually just leads to nihilism, not nationalism.
The boys over at Christians for Truth have a lot of that stuff. I’m no fan of the Old Testament, but they prove, using the ancient Hebrew words, that Adam was explicitly a white man and he was created in the image of God.
Cardinal Sara is as black as the Ace of Spades (Guinea, I think) but he has, at least once, spoken out against the great replacement. He made fun of the multi-cultis twisting the word of God.
The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is heavily infiltrated with multi-cultis, but there is a huge Trad Catholic movement who reject it. Prominent US Catholics are calling on Trump to launch a criminal investigation into the Catholic Bishops’ use of billions to bring in all the fake refugees. There are also allegations about missing children. Check out Life Site News, The Remnant newspaper and probably hundreds of others. Protestants and Orhodox Christians have similar trends.
Picture of “pope” kissing the feet captures christianity perfectly as it is incompatibility to ethno-nationalism because christianity promotes universal brotherhood; no regard for ethnicity, that faith is superior to family ties, which of course it is not. This christianity is not only anti-White it is the enemy of our European Race as it is aiding & abetting the invasion of our European homelands from Europa to Australia & leading to our extermination. What use is a religion if it’s not synonymous with the survival & best interests of its people. Christianity goes contrary to God’s Laws Of Nature, primarily Self-Preservation. It’s a weak submissive religion of humility, guilt, do nothing because “God will save us” suicidal basically, while the INVASION continues. No legitimate religion stands idle as a race is exterminated.
Contrast that to our Pagan beliefs (we were Pagan far longer than christian) where it was more along the lines of honor, pride, strength, courage. We need a religion that is pro our people, pro European aka White. I’ll take Pagan if it ensures our survival. Our Race has been pagan far longer than we’ve been christian.
Another option would be OROR.
Our Religion Our Race;
Our Race Our Religion.
XIV VERBA
“Since we are never going to have our own racial religion like the Jews”.
Why not? The simple & forever solution is making Our Race Our Religion.
No, I need Christianity personally. I’m too weak to survive without slave morality.
I forget everyone is a demigod patrician ubermensch in every facet of life and lives forever. Nietzche was pretty weak and degenerate himself.
😂
I do have plenty of ideas, though I’m rather reluctant to write about it, since I’m not sure it would be well-received.
The short version is that leftist interpretations of the Gospels aren’t the only ones, and neither are they especially authoritative. Contexts are dropped, and undue emphasis is applied to flaky interpretations. Theologians who misuse Scripture like this are putting words in God’s mouth to push a harmful secular agenda, making them about as bad as Pharisees.
Other than that, the present day corrupted versions of Christianity are merely a symptom of the times, something that didn’t happen in better times. Yes, much of it got corrupted, but so did every other instituion of society.
Do you have any recommendations for rightist interpretations for the Gospels? I’m genuinely interested and would love to read them.
The Faith & Heritage website had lots of good articles. It’s not active anymore, but you can still get their content at https://faithandheritage.com/
I do recall a video, I think by G. Edward Griffin, going into some of that. The basic point is that the cardinal virtues can be divided approximately into masculine virtues and feminine virtues. These need to be in balance for everything to be functional and sensible. This came out in the 1960s or so; it was pretty prescient, since it predated a lot of telescopic philanthropy and “refugees welcome” crap. If I find it again, I might be tempted to write it up.
The very idea of seeking a ‘religious’ solution to secular problems reflects the essence of the ‘enlightenment’ paradigm. Imagine a Roman thinking himself ‘How can we remodel the cult of Jupiter to make our country not cucked again?’ That would make no sense, and it makes no sense now. Religion is the superstructure of the ritual life of the community. The center of religion is ritual, and ritual is its chief domain. Do Chinese look for ‘based’ interpretations of Tao Te Ching? Why not? Are they basing their growing nationalism on spiritual scriptures? Of course not, the foundation of Chinese nationalism are Chinese political traditions and doctrines.
Christian faith – as it is today – gives a certain cultural and spiritual communion to European peoples, and being a religion, one cannot expect of it to do more than that. Further foundation for political unity should be sought in common political traditions.
Please note that I’m not advocating for a national religion or anything like that. Everything we need can be argued for well enough on secular grounds. One thing I’d like to do, however, is to discredit phony preachers who turn religion into an emotional crowbar in service of their moldy leftist ideology.
Have Nicky Santoro pay a visit just once. And remind them that rainbows belong in the sky, not among altars. No persuasions needed. Just demand it or else.
This article is the work of a serious man who thinks seriously about serious things. Well done.
Perhaps the existing ones can be taken over by us using them to take up our cause rather than subvert it. That is to say, that Whites are effectively a stateless people. We are by the definitions in international law undergoing ethnic replacement, cultural genocide and we have many aliens in our nations that openly advocate for our genocide. We also fit the four factors of species/sub-species extinction that are indisputable in legitimate science.
Perhaps that is the start. Perhaps while Trump is in power the process of an appeal to the UN or other international organizations are the testing ground for if they will help and if not, at least the White League of Nations and the moral claims and statements you advocate for will be brought to life. Perhaps as leverage or enticement to get advocates within those orgs on our side, you also bring charges against those who are leading TGR and who openly advocate for our genocide. Many of those people are extremely unpopular inside of the international governing bodies and some may take the bait and take up the cause in haste and anger. We must be cunning.
Personally, I think the most viable path is for us to salvage America and turn nation building away from the non-European nations where that has failed, and start with the Afrikaaners and Anglo-SouthAfricans. If we do not save America, I don’t know who will protect the rest of European peoples from foreign predation increasing over its already intolerable levels.
That said, I think you should just do it. We could take the existing ethno-nationalist leaders across the European people’s continents and create the WLoN, draft up the platforms/manifestos and start making appeals to the UN. Maybe even a big name like Connor MacGregor could be convinced to come onside and take up the cause with Ireland as the leader. He is already going to Trump. That means he is stateless. He can’t even appeal to Irish leaders.
In any case. Great thinking and I think the fuel is already there inside of lanterns to light a match to.
If homogeneously white nations exist, they may perpetrate terrible wars. But if homogeneously white nations do not exist, there will be no white people to be harmed by such wars.
C.S. Lewis wrote touchingly and with no criticism of a friend of his, an innocent and upright man, whose whole joy was killing Germans.
We murdered our brothers and sisters for brightly colored scraps of cloth and clashing national jingles; now look at us.
If we beat all the odds and survive as a race our heroes won’t be old style nationalist heroes ordering huge and dysgenic fratricidal slaughters but racially minded men who warned us us away from all that.
Other races have wars and conflicts. White nationalism doesn’t promise a perfect world—it promises a white one!
I am afraid that is true,, and far from perfect in our present situation, my nationalism is now dedicated to the State of Intelligentsia
“The world is my country and doing good is my religion- Thomas Paine”
I’d ask Thomas Paine, how to define good without God? And, how to share a world with those who want to end your existence in it for no good reason? Rhetorical.
Ironically, if it was up to him, the separated and thus weak 13+ states would have quickly fallen to Spain and/or France and/or even returned to Britain, heck all of the above most likely. And he would have complained about it and pursued even more brother wars.
Ironically it seems that Thomas Paine produced the literature which helped spark the revolution against the injustice of that colonial power, and not simply a war against brothers. A surgeon must know the difference between a kidney and a kidney stone.
Sharing a world with those who want to end your existence. It seems like a double edged sword doesn’t it? A good percentage of our entire social spectrum [racial and political] has been infused with fear, and under this influence we again cloud God and Good. So, where to draw a line between the greatest mass murder since the holocaust (starting with Nakba 1948 please) using my money for 2,000 lb. bombs (with immediate incineration of 900 meters of area on contact, in civilian centers, 400 children in the last 48 hours) or playing poker with Ukrainian lives?
God and good, but The Devil is in the details.
“White Nationalism is primarily a response to white demographic decline and non-white migration into our homelands. Unless these trends are halted, whites will cease to exist as a distinct race.”
You got that right. This is our community of interest, the most legitimate community of interest that has ever existed.
We must stop White genocide. If we reject this task or fail in it everything else is irrelevant.
With regards to Hitler, I’ve never been big on Hitler or Nazi worship, although I know there are some in our circles who engage in it. I think idolization of any one person is almost always a mistake, at least when it comes to politics. However, I think a lot of us (at least I would hope) would just be happy with Hitler, the Germans, and WWII being looked at OBJECTIVELY rather than as the one-dimensional comic book conflict that the media (and even many historians) have turned it into. That includes an honest appraisal of Churchill and FDR’s role in fanning the flames of a war that most Americans didn’t want prior to Pearl Harbor. But yes, larping as Nazis is just dumb and counter-productive.
The lads in Australia aren’t larpers doing some kanye stunt or musk heiling. They’d say admiration more than some cult of personality default worship cuz Nazis cool, and I doubt they blindingly fawn over Mr. Hitler like milquetoast republicans do reagan or magalomania.
“Isn’t the law of nature that the strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must?”
No, because that means that the strong, the parents, will plunder and murder their children, and that means death not multi-generational success.
There are natural communities of interest that overwhelm and must overwhelm the primitive logic of force. From the point of view of families, including extensive families with a degree of inbreeding, that is to say races, the pseudo-smart guy who pushes the logic of force and the advantage of the strongest to its conclusion is a fool who causes people of his own genetic type to be less successful.
Greg’s article requires a lot of thought and is difficult to respond to quickly.
Our ancestors did not know about genetics so they did not know who they were, they did not know what their common interest was, and they did not know their duties.
Our ancestors were fools who took weak proxies for genetic commonality for real connections. They would think, “he is like me because he speaks Greek like me.” They would think, “he is like me because he wears a Phrygian cap like me.” They would think “he is like me because he is a free Roman citizen like me” (not like an almost identical twin who was a slave or who was being ruined by economic competition with slaves). “He is like me because he is Irish / English / French / German / Polish / Russian [etc.] like me.” It was all a game for fools.
Our patriotic and nationalist and smugly “well-born” (meaning wealthy and well-fed) ancestors were blind fools who murdered each other in the dark, achieving nothing but our common ruin.
Now look at us.
We are not ignorant of basic genetics and we have no excuse to do what our ancestors did, going along between the narrowing rails to the end point of this abattoir.
Our ancestors still knew they were of the same compared to others. The Greeks clearly defined Europe in boundaries as we do today and Europeans as we define them today. They acknowledged their differences and similarities. The Aeneid is in part a documentation of the Indo-European migrations into Greece and Italy. So, there has always been an understanding of where the boundaries lie and even some knowledge of our shared blood and its expression in shared culture.
That said, we now have DNA, archeology and anthropology to confirm their instincts and intuitions as correct. We have a few centuries of fratricidal savagery to live with. Right now, the globalist solution is the fork in the road taken for the past century. Simply try and eradicate distinction they think and they will eradicate conflict. Of course, that is an own goal propelled by subversive ethnic rivals. Our nationalism offers the alternative at the fork in the road.
The deep crisis is now showing the globalist, melting pot path to be a catastrophe far greater than the brother wars undertaken with mass lethality via our technological prowess. It is proving to be a path of mass insanity and mass suicide. That is giving room for our fork to be considered and tried. Moreover the moral apparatus constructed to dispossess and genocide us is also a moral apparatus that legitimates our cause.
We just need to assert our territorial and genetic existence and rights and show that anyone who holds up this moral framework to destroy is illegitimate and even malevolent.
It is happening. In short, yes, DNA and the sciences that confirm cultural and blood lineage are now potent weapons on our side. They also serve as a binding substratum that can supercede religious choices. For they show that we didn’t rise as a result of Christianity, but that Christianity was a consequence of our fall in the ancient world. That also points to our Godhead being seated not in the Levant but in the lakes, forests and rivers of our Fatherland of Europe. That does not deligitimize Christianity, it merely presents an opportunity to ignore sectarian religious disputes across Paganism and Christianity and points toward a common heritage and thus a common destiny across a single people with particular languages and cultures.
It is an exciting time. A Pan European Imperium is going to arise. This Imperium will by necessity use its muscularity in our collective defense. At the same time, finally, the necessity of survival, will teach us to embrace our differences knowing that underneath them all we are a single people who can act as such while honoring our particularities. The myth of Christ and the myth of Perseus have more in common than they do not. DNA, anthropology, archeology and linguistics are potent tools in constructing a shared identity. It lives in our blood and at the base of all of our tongues. At last we have the means to confirm what the ancients saw with their own eyes.
Our recent, nationalist ancestors were dogmatic, pompous, racially suicidal fools who would say things like, “if it wasn’t for ‘Bomber’ Harris you’d be speaking German.”
They would say things like that while looking at London, where Whites have been reduced to a minority, and where the forced, policy-driven extinction of our race is planned and put into effect.
… and where, in many parts, English is hardly spoken.
“… and where, in many parts, English is hardly spoken.”
That’s true but we shouldn’t care.
The Scots once spoke Gaelic and now speak English and it doesn’t matter. If the Scots one day speak German or French that won’t matter either.
What matters is that Scots, the true sons and daughters of White, Scottish ancestors, should survive and thrive.
If Grandpa still speaks some words of Gaelic and Grandpa has “no racial prejudices” and puts up no resistance to his grand-children being replaced by Blacks and Arabs Grandpa is a fool.
As for the Scots so also for the English and the Germans and for all our nations. We need to survive and thrive racially and we need to organize so that this can be so. This is what matters.
Oh, I’m just referring to how they still say “at least we’re not speaking German” – you could hear that exact argument in the recent discussion between Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan – but they seem to ignore how in their big cities and schools, a cacophony of African and Asian languages is spoken, and less and less English.
Rather a cool language like German than mandarin, hindi, arabic, and bantu clicks-baiting animals to violate.
I’m not sure why this framework would stand a greater chance of success than the League of Nations. Regarding security agreements, Pat Buchanan argued that the war guarantee Britain gave to Poland ensured world war in the event Germany attacked Poland, thus worsening the situation. I do see one advantage: by restricting membership to white nations, an intergovernmental body will not become, as the United Nations has, a grievance organization used by nonwhite countries to bilk white ones.
I think the model is more like NATO in that regard: a mutual guarantee of all for all, so that an attack on one is an attack on all, and hopefully none dare attack…
Globalists make cynical use of xenophobia when it suits them. If any nation desires to break away from the EU, NATO, etcetera, the system loves to gin up ethnic hatred and discrimination against this nation and its people. Don’t forget how the EU media treated Greece when there were even faint talks of them leaving the Union, there was proaganda within EU countries designed specifically to denigrate Greeks and their culture. These institutions hold nations hostage, and when their prisoners become nationalistic or independent-minded, they are more than happy to sow aggression, instability and war, and then blame this on nationalism itself as a concept.
Vauquelin, you are right and we can all see what you see.
It goes against my wariness of nationalism to say it but all these examples of nationalism being bad are ginned up by the antiwhite mass media and they are fake. We should not let them influence us.
I remember the bad-mouthing of the Greeks standing up for themselves as we all should. It was disgusting.
This was a refreshingly clear and forthright essay, obviously distilled from the recent discussion with Joel Davis. For more context and argument, have a listen:
https://counter-currents.com/2025/03/counter-currents-radio-podcast-no-629-joel-davis-and-the-ns-question/
Nit-pick: “One is a global government that abolishes all other sovereignties.” There seems to be a missing word or introductory sentence here.
Yikes, yes, this sentence was omitted: “There are basically two ways to prevent this.”
We need intellectually coherent and morally defensible nationalism.
“Many White Nationalists will indignantly reject this obligation. But in your heart, you know I’m right.”
Unlike Charlton Heston seeing Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign poster, i didnt read this piece and think, “Son of a bitch, he IS right!”
Greg Johnson is yet to convince me that nationalism the collective consciousness is not stigmatised by WW2. The simplest explanation is the correct one: Occam’s razor in effect. Indeed in the first paragraph here Johnson readily admits as such. This is odd to my mind, because he was essentially denying that claim prior to now. He was saying it doesn’t matter, people don’t care about it, indeed that only one person has ever objected to him about Nationalism cf. the Holocaust.
Let me make an analogy here. Let’s say I get falsley accused of something egregious that impacts my life and employment. Let’s say someone baselessly accuses me of being a paedophile. What should I do?
1. Ignore it
2. Counter-sue them
If you ignore it, the nature of life is that if you throw mud, it sticks, so the chances are the libel will follow you. My advice would be to bite back, state the truth and indeed if possible, counter-sue and get THEM done for libel.
THE BEST ARGUMENT, for my money, that the “step over” crowd have is that the 1940s are almost 100 years ago and are slipping out of the consciousness [of the youth primarily]. That’s the best argument, and that’s simply a natural progression and can’t be attributed to any person who downplayed the Holocaust. Indeed, if we are at a point where it doesn’t matter anymore, then surely revisionists have helped us get there, by chipping away at the edifice of Jewish power over the decades. Had they remained shtum and not put their head above the parapet, the chances are that the WW2-as-foundational-myth idea would be stronger than it currently is.
By the way, in the same “step over” speech Bowden also said “We’re not sorry! We’re not sorry for what we’ve done..if you start every attempt to assert yourself with saying “I’m sorry”, then you’re not going to get anywhere”. Which seems to suggest not just stepping over but also asserting a revisionist viewpoint.
I don’t necessarily disagree with Greg wrt ethnonationalism in general. However I still believe that for the time being at least and immediate foreseeable future, countering the lies about WW2 (that modern society is built on) is a worthwhile endeavour.
That all said. There’s a lot in this article, and though I’ve read through it twice now, I have not fully distilled its entire ramifications. I should read this slowly again and try to fully understand exactly what is being said here.
You’re assuming that most of what is said about WWII is a lie.
Much of it is a LIE, or at least the “essentials” of 20th century history are:
Hitler unilaterally restarted the World War, and 2) then waged it for an extermination program for Jews, and if you are being “ecumenical,” for Slavs as well.
In college, I remember some face-pierced and doughy Lesbian giving a paper about how Lesbians were treated in the Third Reich.
Well, I cautiously countered that this lifestyle wasn’t even against the law unless you were talking about wardresses in institutional settings like Catholic hospitals in Austria ─ and that a lot of these hard-looking butches, regardless of their sexual orientation, actually sent to the camps were in fact Jewish Communists, or outright traitors like Sophie Scholl. Not saying anything about Scholl’s sexual orientation but she was guillotined for spreading defeatist British propaganda (maybe a bit harsh). Of course, I was immediately accused of being an NS sympathizer, which I suppose is true. Feminists are not really fighting the “Patriarchy,” whatever that means.
Anyway, the Truth is important to study and to debate ─ it must be on the table ─ but that almost can’t be done about the NS era. And for obvious reasons. There are too many laws against it in countries without a First Amendment, and “billions and billions” (Carl Sagan voice) of dollars are spent in anti-NS propaganda to this very day. Why is that?
Young people today might not have a clue who George Wallace or even Richard Nixon was, but they will always be told that Hitler tried to gas all the Joos. It will never not be forgotten. It will always be a proverbial “bloody shirt” to wave against White Nationalists that get too close to power.
The Globaloney establishment not only puts up legal barriers to Holocaust “denial” scholarship or “incitement to Hate,” they spend billions and billions annually to write the history as they see fit, as I said.
There is even an Anne Frank memorial in Boise, Idaho for heck’s sake. It is vandalized often for the headlines by Antifa provocateurs, or at least that ain’t likely being done by any “White Supreemists.”
Every time a dumb White delinquent with tattoos and a shaved head commits a crime or escapes from prison, the national media is right in there with the “Idaho White Supremacist” catechism ─ as if the ghost of Richard Butler of the Aryan Nations church or the idiotic 1984 assassination of the vile Denver radio shock jock (((Alan Berg))) was looming everywhere.
There was an article in the news recently about an Idaho (Boise area) teacher who had some egalitarian posters on her classroom wall like “Everyone Is Welcome Here” with a rainbow mocha of hands, which the school administration wanted her to take down.
The Horror.
My response would have been to keep the poster up but to include an additonal one like “It’s Okay to Be White.”
How would the Liberals feel about a classroom placard that said something equally anodyne but with no anti-White implications? It is not hard to guess.
Obviously the purpose of such diversity and inclusivity is to imply that there is something too White (and therefore wrong) about Idaho.
LINK
And what is even meant by Hate? At one time we used to be able to define actual crimes against persons and property.
If a Negro is a victim of a crime by a White person, they love to prosecute it as a Hate Crime. Double Jeopardy might not even apply if the Feds get involved. But if a White boy or girl is victimized by a Negro, then that is just common street crime. It can never be a Hate motivation if Gentile Whites are the victims.
The term “Genocide” was coined by a Polish-Jewish jurist named Raphael Lemkin during the Good War, and deliberately to be vague and polemical. That is why I am not too keen on Whites trying to appropriate the term. Jews will never allow us to partake of that sacrament.
History should be approached not from a theory of universal or particular Butthurt but more like the Scientific Method, a PROCESS for approaching Truth and not a canonical outcome. That means that nothing is off the table to debate.
History is always many points of view and there is always nuance. Even the “hard sciences” like Chemistry can be taken down to absurdly reductionist levels of detail that are still open to debate and interpretation.
White Nationalism will inevitably face the Hitler problem, and the Jewish Question writ large ─ especially if it becomes a serious contender for political power focusing on Race and Culture, and not just the businessman’s or the moneylender’s point of view.
🙂
Anne Frank’s parents fled to Germany from Idaho in order to escape KKK. How can you be ignorant of that?
“Hate” actually means thought crime, but they can’t state it plainly. Judging emotions is subjective and yields any result desired by the power.
It’s very popular among them. Putin’s articles 280 and 282 of the Penal Code are formulated so vaguely that anyone can be sentenced to prison (although almost only Russian nationalists are). My friend even got political asylum in Germany (of all places) after that.
It’s a hard one to argue really, because the thing about the holohoax is that it SEEMS correct to the normie . In a court, you are asked: “Could this man have committed this crime?” And you are given a character profile. He plucked the wings off a fly when he was 6. He drew a gory cartoon when he was 10. He was a truant from school. At 18, he assaulted a man in the street. Etc etc etc.
The point is that there’s a libellous claim hanging over the white race (not just Germans, weirdly) – that we committed, or, are capable of committing, an industrial scale genocide.
The normie readily believes this, because it’s less about the ins and outs and more “ah yes, I could believe that that could happen.” German efficiency, anyone? They’re so robotic and emotionless! They just do what they’re told! And they’re so angry! Nich nach doch woch! Have you heard German ? Man, they sound PISSED! Hell yeah, the glove fits! These guys hella did this hall of cost thing! For sure, bro! Bruh, Asians couldn’t do that shit! Dey sum weak-ass pussies right there! More like math champ! Niggas and cholos, bro, we so chill bruh, just smokin da herb, we ain’t all up in dat war shit! Dat soem white people shit right there bruh them muthafukkas is uptight as HELL!
One of the points of this article, though I could have made it more clearly, is litigating the historical claims about WWII is beside the point. Say you spent 77 years on it, won every argument, and reduced your critics to silence.
Then somebody says, “But what about WWI?”
The point is that the cloud over nationalism is not going to be defeated by historical arguments, but by coming up with plausible proposals for institutions that dispel the cloud, which basically boils down to an objection to states waging war.
That’s not a bad mode of thinking, but not very efficient.
Just listing some of “peace-lovers” deeds would be enough. Afganistan and Iraq are much closer than 1945.
And people in the European countries were not deterred by post-WWI propaganda during the interwar period at all. I don’t find it to be a serious issue.
The point is about the UN and the post 1945 world order. Our speech is very seriously curtailed. Why is that? It’s because in the kangaroo courts of Nuremberg they put Julius Streicher to death on the charge that his comic, Der Sturmer, was propaganda that led to the Holocaust. As far as I’m aware this set a legal precedent. “Stirring up hatred” is the phrase our leaders love today. The argument is that “hate speech” leads to “racism” which inexorably leads to “genocide”. If you prick the balloon of the Holocaust, then this argument falls flat. “Hate speech”, that is to say, a white nation asserting itself, does not necessarily lead to genocide – it didn’t in the 40s. It’s the worst kind of slippery slope argument (in that it’s ‘unsound’), and it is the backbone of the current system’s silencing of us, which includes silencing you. How much bigger would Counter Currents be if it wasn’t blacklisted off credit card processors, and shadowbanned off search results? This impacts you, and the precedent for that was Nuremberg.
With all that said, I’m more interested in Winning than I am in Being Right- which are perhaps 2 distinct things, at times. If your strategy leads to victory then it must be followed. But is it even desirable, or indeed possible, to win over a critical mass of normies? And: haven’t you just taken the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and given it a White lick of paint?
The Revisionist argument that the Holocaust is the foundation of everything that ails us, therefore, if we debunk the Holocaust, we will make significant headway, was never valid. As Mark Weber pointed out correctly, the Holocaust’s cultural standing is a product of pre-existing Jewish power. It it not the foundation of Jewish power. If they dropped it tomorrow, they would simply pivot to other arguments for suppressing free speech and white ethnocentrism.
Beyond that, the problem with Revisionism is that the Holocaust was real. The Revisionists gave it their best shot. They’ve revealed a lot of lies, propaganda, and emotional manipulation. But the core claims about the mass extermination of Jews stand. Thus Revisionism has been abandoned by people like Mark Weber, David Irving, David Cole, and Richard Harwood.
Yes, it is desirable and possible to win people over. It had better be, because it really is the only thing we can do.
“The point is that the cloud over nationalism is not going to be defeated by historical arguments, but by coming up with plausible proposals for institutions that dispel the cloud, which basically boils down to an objection to states waging war.”
These are words of good sense.
Maybe it took a convinced White nationalist to think that the right institutions could exist and be consistent with White nationalism. Maybe that raw optimism is the right starting point.
With all respect, Mr. Johnson, that’s mostly beside the point. Our enemies are dishonest from the very beginning.
First, the most disastrous wars happen to be related to civil issues. After the German Civil Wars, the country’s population declined three times. Accordingly, after the Yellow Turban Rebellion in China, there was a population decrease from 54 million to 18 million, and that’s in the III century AD! The most brutal American war was related to cesession of several states. You can continue the list as long as you wish.
Of course, having several ethnicities in one state makes civil conflicts much more probable by default. Iceland didn’t have problems like Yugoslavia, for example.
That’s not to mention that in the XX century there were a plenty of communist “peace-loving” governments waging war on their own citizens due to some ideological issues. These supposed champions of peace have a record of being the most brutal at war. And, of course, they went to wars with each other as soon as they gained power (China vs. Vietnam, Cambodia vs. Vietnam etc.).
Also, after comminist states like the USSR or Yugoslavia collapsed, they just had an explosion of ethnic conflicts. These unnatural structures made the matters worse in the first place.
And the second half of the XX century is especially filled with bombing people for “democracy” and “working class”. Several million people were killed just because of that.
An obvious conclusion is to get rid of utopian ideologies.
Second, there is presently no danger of Germany taking Danzig or Breslau, or Norway invading France etc. It’s just hypothetic. And a lot of issues of ethnic minorities were solved after WWII with massive forced deportations.
I don’t think there is urge to keep peace between us. Everyone already understands the problem.
Third, wars don’t start only because someone wants to grab more land. The underlying reason is the Second Law of thermodynamics, and you can’t get around that with peace talks or any other kind of deterrent. As entropy increases, a society can crack at one point like a tectonic plate, and you get a civil war. It’s physics. Wars just happen, like accidents, forest fires, floods etc. If they don’t happen due to one reason, something else would emerge as a pretext.
As an example, America now has (at least) two camps, the members of which violently hate each other. If you don’t manage to clean it on time, it will explode with any serious societal trouble. When conditions deteriorate, you will just get a war. And it was hardly imaginable around 1950, but you gradually got there.
That’s how the reality exists, no amount of abstract proposals and good intentions would help the issue.
The best rule here is: “Si vis pacem, para bellum”.
Fourth, I have a proposition to those people. If they want to escape all unpleasantness, the best way is to eliminate all life on the Earth. Imagine: no wars, no grief, no pain! That’s what the original argument boils down to.
It’s like arguing that it’s good to live in a concentration camp, because it’s controlled for crime.
Agreed. True, one can chill entropy down as much as possible, but absolute zero can only exist with heat death aka zero life. By the same token, even with an ideal utopian “league of white nations” and “ideal white multi- and mono-ethnostates”, you will still have fractures that flare up occasionally. Inside the white states, you will always have minority white tribal movements like Catalonians, Basques, Kosovars, Scots, etc that must be dealt with, whether they are given their own polity or not. And between the white states, you will always have leading white nations whose interests are not exactly the same as those of the little white nations, and will have to balance keeping their high status with being fair, with this not always working out. So yeah, intratribal struggle will always happen. But at the very least, we can chill it down for a while, before all but few of the tribes are dead. Ask the Amerinds. That said, even if we chill down the brother wars down to minimum, there will always be big brothers and little brothers, ane some discord once in a while, which will result in some brother succeeding more and another having to settle. It is inevitable.
Strong intentions here, Greg. As a general direction it’s admirable.
I suppose a consideration is that not everything happens at once. Say that some white countries agree to everything you say. But another group don’t, led by the UK and France for instance, and maybe with other ‘allies’ in the Third World. They are thoroughly invested in immigration and diversity now, up to their chins in this blood and can’t go back anymore, don’t want to admit the wrongs of what they have done and despite all the good intentions, paint us as the bad guys.
They don’t want to let go of the ‘essential’ wealth generation that they have got this way, it’s keeping them afloat, they don’t want to let go of importing voters and populations and the control that gives them and now they start to resent and fear this new bloc that’s forming as a new force, a new power.
You see where I’m going and a potential for conflict, and I’m just wondering how we deal with this practical problem. I can foresee see some parallels with the prior world wars, and that’s why I’m less enthusiastic to just blame Germany for everything.
Letting go of capital and a certain kind of manufactured mandate, and ‘shape’ of power derived from immigration and diversity, having to trim at least some aspects of globalization, is going to be a hard sell.
The current elites need to be replaced and oligarchs must start fearing the state again, or nothing will change.
Beyond that, let’s say that only Central and Eastern Europe wake up, close their borders, remigrate, and join a mutual defense pact.
That’s a considerable part of Europe, a bloc big enough to resist declining societies like the UK and France.
You have too many illusions about Central and Eastern Europe. Yes, it’s true that the woke refugee welcomers are only a marginal force here, but our public institutions and media are mostly firmly in the hands of the global liberal elite. Our economy is controlled by Western corporations and banks. Even when there are leaders like Orbán in Hungary or Fico in Slovakia, they must constantly face the efforts of pro-Western liberals to dethrone them through colour revolutions. Now, moreover, any attempt to oppose the policies of Brussels and the liberal oligarchy is branded as collaboration with Putin’s Russia (see the situation in Romania and Serbia). If an open liberal tyranny emerges in the West, it will quickly assert itself here as well (it is already happening, for example, by persecuting so-called hate speech through politicized judiciary). Paradoxically, white nationalism as a political movement is weak in East-Central Europe because there is not so much direct contact with nonwhites.
The current elites need to be replaced and oligarchs must start fearing the state again, or nothing will change.
And that’s the only bottom line that will overpower the other “bottom line” $
Greg’s approach to white nationalism, presented here, is what attracted me to Counter Currents and has kept me onboard. We get so used to being constantly opposed by everyone that contrarian-mode can become our default setting, even among our own. Please, if that is you, just take a minute to recognize a good idea when you see it, and resist the urge to always “yeah, but…” out of habit. Being contrary for contrariness’ sake is not a virtue.
As for the Hitlerian types, inclined to think that helping whites is ennobled by steepening the slope of an already uphill battle, please, for the love of God, get serious.
A very well-reasoned article, Greg. I interpreted as an extended rejoinder to your debate with Joel Davis, the last paragraph making that very clear. I enjoyed listening to the discussion, but I grew exasperated at one point because I thought you were both avoiding (or more accurately, not anticipating) the point about liberalism, or liberal nationalism. If liberalism (liberal nationalism) is bad, is there no difference between illiberal nationalism and National Socialism? Are there shades or varieties of illiberal nationalism that are not National Socialist? What does a non-NS, illiberal nationalism look like?
I agree with Mark Weber when he says that the Holocaust is a product of Jewish power. But they (the enemy) would not be spending billions of dollars on the problem in maintenance and promotion if it were not fundamentally relevant to that power.
I also agree that there is no one Jenga stick that when removed will disintegrate the Big-H and dethrone the tissue of lies. The Holocaust is a Liberal mythology cultivated daily by billions of dollars of well-spent propaganda dedicated expressly to sabotaging White Nationalism.
One either gets that or one does not.
The way to defeat the Big-H is by meticulous historiography and by at least addressing the Jewish Question; then it won’t mattter who thinks whom is Rayciss.
We promote our own interests, without apology. You’re welcome to scamper off to Israel if you have a problem with that.
Agreed, that historiography and political power are not the same things.
We do not need to rely upon the former to achieve the latter, but we do need to be vigilant and ready to counter poisonous claims with competent (or at least not incompetent) arguments.
I find all this talk about a White League of Nations without the intellectual equivalent of atomic energy worn ready on the hip to be very Kellogg-Briand. Very Utopian.
Why is it that we are insisting on playing the power game only within the specified confines of the Kosher ballpark? That might get us more Jewish dollar$ in the coffers ─ but will it guarantee that we do anything besides lose in everything that matters?
No, we need to be willing instead to tell the Truth or to at least be guided by it. That is the only answer and it will anchor our political activism. The claim that Hitler never made mistakes is a straw-man argument. Nobody that I know of is trying to make him into Jesus.
When a befuddled Mark Weber came back from the remarkable 2006 Teheran Holocaust conference, CNN’s (((Wolf Blitzer))) ─ if I remember the broadcast correctly, the video clip seems to have fallen into the Memory Hole ─ the interviewer showed the standard newsreel bites of epidemics found in German camps at the end of the war. And Mark Weber caved immediately and said that he was not a Holocaust Denier. Big Fail.
Greg now says that the Holocaust is true. Does he really believe this?
I don’t think that David Irving believes this. I don’t know about Mark Weber, but I’ll bet that the ADL is ecstatic that the IHR is not pursuing Revisionist historiography any longer. David Cole is a blacklisted Hollywood Jew, whom I have some empathy for since he now cannot publish anything of substance.
In fairness, Mr. Weber was not given a TV monitor to know exactly what was happening on the live post-Teheran ambush interview ─ but when hit with the usual celluloid smear of graphic epidemics in WWII camps, Mr. Weber (who knows better) should have simply said that:
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Nobody Was Gassed!
That would have contextualized the shock-and-awe being shown. No, they are not going to want to debate whether their main premise is really the truth or not. They are counting on the ritualistic obeisance of White elites to their graphic atrocity-propaganda.
The Holocaust must be maintained as an article of faith for obvious reasons. One either believes in the divinity of Jesus or he doesn’t. Hard to prove a negative anyway. Just don’t dare ask the wrong questions.
Nobody is saying that nothing bad never happened or that nobody got hurt in the Good War. Extreme violence, hardship in spades, and sometimes unmitigated cruelty is usually the way that wars work out. And there is plenty of Allied dirt that can be dusted about if one is the least bit open-minded on the subject.
Sovereign states are sovereign because they have trade and other agreements and customs with other sovereign states. International Law is not what we usually think to be about the law or justice, but nothing more than treaty agreements. Some of these ties are stronger than others; sometimes they are good, other times less so.
But all states have to have the ability to actually fight for what they believe in, and the ability to muster enough force to make it credible. Otherwise they become part of some other superpower’s sphere of interests, assuming that there is anything there that anyone would want to bother with.
I don’t see White Nationalists ever gaining power by conceding to fundamental lies made to keep us down, and by further limiting themselves and their arguments to the safe Kosher space. This might provide dubious access to Jewish money but I can see no further advantages.
Furthermore, whatever is meant by “Nazi,” it will always be an issue faced by anyone who wishes to have any kind of political organization that is inherently based on Race and Nation ─ and who actually has a shot at political power. We are not there yet.
The Baddies are “Nazis” and vice-versa because they fought the good fight, not because they were “chauvinists,” or any other such polemical nonsense.
In the end it matters that the cop never actually did have his boot on the neck of Saint George Floyd (if anyone actually bothered to read the postmortem). The mass-media lied. And the masses of simple people believe simple lies, endlessly repeated.
We don’t need to be historiographers, but we cannot continue to abide such calumnies ─ otherwise we will always be waiting to get shanked like the scapegoat in the George Floyd case who was present when the Saint overdosed and had a fatal heart attack while resisting arrest.
I don’t want people to LARP as Hollywood Nazis. But they (and you know who I’m talking about) fought the good fight. They were overwhelmed, of course, but hopefully they bought us some time. They fought our fight. And to me this question is a litmus test for White Nationalism.
An ardent policy of credibility and sincerity can always be marketed to the steadfast and devout. It can also win over the skeptical. But disingenuousness and fecklessness has no promise.
🙂
Yes. Playing by enemies’ rules is not a great strategy.
It’s actually a good thing to be as morally perfect as we can. But trying to address everything the enemy comes up with is just impossible. They’ll set you a mark so high that you must be a saint to pass the test. And if you do, they’ll smear you with something else. And even if you are like Jesus Christ, they’ll just maintain silence. Of course, they don’t hold themselves to their own standard. It’s not a fair game.
When you cede territory to the enemy, it smells of weakness, not fairness. “Oh, we’re sorry about X, but…” mode of argument doesn’t win people’s hearts. A clever and objective person can just look at Jared Taylor and conclude that he’s not going to “gas the Jews” etc. without any apologies or elaborate theories how we are going to avoid it. Stupid people are still going to listen to the TV.
Why not go into an offensive?
“Hitler? You want to talk about Hitler? What about Lenin, Stalin, Mao?”
That immediately makes opponent’s position indefensible. Let them try to explain (and fail) how Stalin’s ethnic cleansings and deportations align with the “worker’s paradise”.
In a football match, the opponent has a goal, too. You can’t win focusing on your own defense.
And, I think, there’s too much talk about WWII and the Third Reich here.
We should focus on the current issues. You, Americans, have the golden opportunity to participate in your local politics. Get elected! You absolutely can! Do the real things to help people of your county, state etc. Don’t wear swastikas; solve the problems! People will see that you’re not a monster even if they were brainwashed. That’s also how you get backers, donors and resources.
If you don’t participate in politics, you’ll get USSA and prison camps even if you have the best moral arguments. The Reds don’t have morality, they have machine guns for you.
As for George Floyd, he was clearly gassed. He said that he “can’t breathe”. That’s a clear sign of cyanide poisoning. Chauvin’s surname also confirms this. It’s a White Supremacist plot to oppress poor victims and laugh at them!
“When you cede territory to the enemy, it smells of weakness, not fairness. “Oh, we’re sorry about X, but…” mode of argument doesn’t win people’s hearts. A clever and objective person can just look at Jared Taylor and conclude that he’s not going to “gas the Jews” etc. without any apologies or elaborate theories how we are going to avoid it. Stupid people are still going to listen to the TV.”
Here’s the thing: I get how a Nazi would think this is “ceding territory.” Nazis also have a frustrating tendency to assume that everyone secretly agrees with them but are just too cowardly or greedy to do so openly. So it makes sense to think that this is “optics” or insincerity or some sort of angle.
But no, I don’t think we need to defend the historical record of past states. I actually agree with the enemies of nationalism that nations have done plenty of stupid, crazy, and evil things. I accept that nationalists have a cloud over our heads that we need to dispel. But I think that we can make a strong case that, contrary to the globalists and multiculturalists, a world of nations practicing mutual respect will actually reduce the amount of violence and misery in the world.
Good luck, Mr. Johnson, I support your efforts.
Nevertheless, I find it to be misapplication of your resources. I know exactly 0 (zero) people who need such an argument.
And your proposals look idealistic, like what Woodrow Wilson would come up with. Such a project is easy to dismiss, even if it’s well designed.
Oddly enough, our world is being ruled by globalists right now due to the appeal of these “idealistic” proposals.
And they aren’t pie in the sky. They respond to very real problems and have been somewhat successful in avoiding a major European war until Putin started the latest one, a war that would not have happened if Ukraine had already been in NATO.
“I don’t see White Nationalists ever gaining power by conceding to fundamental lies made to keep us down, and by further limiting themselves and their arguments to the safe Kosher space. This might provide dubious access to Jewish money but I can see no further advantages.”
I don’t think it is a lie. In any case, I don’t think it keeps us down, as I argue here: https://counter-currents.com/2016/03/why-the-holocaust-happened/
This is Weber’s last word on the Holocaust: https://ihr.org/other/weber_revisionism_jan09
David Cole’s Republican Party Animal has a summary of his mature views on the matter.
In 2014, I had a dinner with Weber and Richard Harwood where they talked about how they, Irving, and Cole had basically converged on the same conclusions.
Richard Harwood’s arguments never advanced beyond the 1970s, and much historiography and investigation has been done since then.
I asked David Irving point blank to his face about this and he hedged a little but I do not think that he believes in Holocaust Lite, which is David Cole’s position. (I own a rare copy of Cole’s blacklisted book.) David Cole’s arguments are nonsense ─ at least as far as anybody being gassed at the Reinhardt Camps.
As far as Mr. Weber, according to Ted O’Keefe, the editor of the ceased (2002) Journal of Historical Review, in his “Whistleblower’s Letter,” in which I was mentioned in passing, Weber did or tried to sell the IHR mailing list to the ADL. That is not my claim. I simply do not trust Weber or his motives, and I had subscribed to the journal since 1980. My good friend, the late Columbia-educated Engineer and Revisionist Fritz Berg, who was once on the IHR Board, had little regard for him either.
I don’t resent Jared Taylor for his refusal to address the JQ. He is upfront about that. I think somebody has to deal with it, but let a thousand flowers bloom.
🙂
As of 2014, Harwood seemed to be up on all the recent debates and literature.
Cole, Irving, Weber: they all held that the best evidence was the millions of Jews were intentionally exterminated at camps in Poland simply because they were Jews. Given the things Hitler believed about Jews, as well as the context of the war — with scarce resources and German civilians dying in large numbers — it seems bizarre that he would do anything else. Apparently, though, as Germany moved toward a total war economy, they switched to forced labor rather than extermination.
Since my case for nationalism doesn’t depend on Hitler’s hands being clean, it doesn’t matter to me one way or another. But many White Nationalists have been sold the idea that the post-war order hinges on the Holocaust, so naturally they differ.
You agreed with a comment in a previous essay of Whites needing to be the stars in our own historic story. My take on the war is that contemporary refocus should be more on the abominable horrors of Hellstorm and what was done to White civilians in particular, our people, that’s been shamefully relegated to the silent abyss shirking proper historic assessment and mention for far too long, especially when our enemies seek its replication against the entirety of European bloodlines. The jews, quite frankly, do not deserve an unlimited tap from the coffers of the ‘holocaust industry’ as norm finkelstein puts it. It’s about us, not them ushering others off and hogging spotlight for the eternal production of My Chronic Victimitis.
I listen to Weber’s podcast and read ihr avidly. When asked to address questions on the Holocaust specifically, he often becomes evasive and sometimes flatly refuses. That could have different interpretations.
Although I don’t really agree with Mr. Weber’s essay on the use of the atomic bomb against Japan on the main IHR web page, over the years I used to really enjoy and look forward to Mr. Weber’s work.
Agree or disagree, these debates are important to have.
I also did not disagree with reducing the Holocaust content of the JHR to maybe 5 percent as long as it was good stuff, and with the other 95 percent on other subjects kept quality stuff too. There just weren’t that many retired Greatest Generation professors with nothing to lose around anymore who could submit quality journal material, I guess.
So what is the point of the IHR now then? Suck up to muh Palestinians? I don’t know. I guess we are all just Liberal Internationalists now. The poor man’s Alger Hiss or Owen Lattimore. Perhaps one day we can get Musk on board and the IHR conferences held at Davos.
Anyway, in all seriousness, this 2016 Mark Weber interview with podcaster Jim Rizoli has to be seen to believed:
LINK
🙂
It’s good that the model presented takes plenty of account of White minorities in White nationalist ethnostates.
I’m thinking of Cornwall and of Spanish Galicia. There are plenty of small nations and micro-nations that are better off as parts of bigger states than they would be by seeking a ferocious version of full sovereignty (even if they succeeded in that ambitious task, which they would not).
From the point of view of the interests of White micro-nations and small nations folded into bigger states, a pro-White inter-governmental association that cherished the fair treatment of White minorities but did not erode the sovereignty of the big states in which these minorities have stakes would be ideal.
The main issue for white minorities is the prohibition of assimilationist policies, which are one of the greatest creators of hatred between otherwise fairly amicable groups.
But do groups like White anti-White Calexiteers truly want to be away from normal White americans and form their little communtopias? How will they function amid such chaos that’s driven sane people out? It seems like the usual hypocrisy writ large of them wanting to be away from “racist White supremacy” yet still depend on them for everything. Eating whatever you want to get the Olympian figure. The “I don’t see color” crowd always sees White when buying real estate.
“Thus we need to somehow transcend “nationalism.” The problem is not really nationalism, though.”
It sort of is, since nationalism naturally lends itself to imperialism.
Case in point: Putin attacking Ukraine is to ultimately unite all Russian speaking peoples–providing that he rules them all himself.
That’s the issue. Nationalism doesn’t necessarily lead to imperialism. Putin isn’t a nationalist. He’s willing to kill a million of “his own people” to seize the land of non-Russians.
Dr. Johnson,
I am confused by your statements as follows: (1) “Thus white collective security requires that we also shun predatory behavior directed at the rest of the world.” and (2) “Imperialism was never right, since it is murder and theft on a massive scale, and just as we don’t want it done to us, we should not do it to others.” Most respectfully, these comments echo Christian pacifist platitudes (see the Sermon on the Mount) and the nihilism of the last man at the end of History in my reading of them. See also “Literature that glorifies war should be regarded as distasteful. . . . Ideologies of perpetual war should be greeted with suspicion.”
I admit that your statements are much more palatable to the modern progressive sensibilities of White elites in Western countries. If these moral statements are pure rhetoric in terms of a tactical use of language to achieve a political end, then I have no real argument with you on that point. In other words, the logic of universal ethno-nationalism as an updated expression of the Wilsonian Fourteen Points is largely aligned with contemporary modern ethical norms and will be much more palatable to your chosen audience, those liberal or progressive White elites that you wish to persuade of your ideological understanding of White nationalism. In response to this, I have no argument regarding your tactics, but rather I question the feasibility of your choice of the audience. I believe that you cannot convince the progressive white elites that you wish to persuade in any significant number. Having lived among their ilk for decades, these men and women appear to shun the faintest notion of white ethnic consciousness due to their belief in the values of “our democracy” and sacrality of universal human rights, that apply to individuals and groups of oppressed peoples not to the oppressor nations, which are all white. I believe these men and women are willing to make great sacrifices in terms of their quality of life and that of their children, if they choose to have any, in order to receive the high of social approval. The only persons who are receptive to the arguments of the white nationalist in any significant number are young alienated right-wing white men who are impressionable and intellectually curious of whatever social class they inhabit. However, you made moral claims, not rhetorical assertions, and I wish to address them.
The primary reasons why I reject your moral reasoning which appears to be grounded in the progressive post-war logic of human rights (as ordained by Eleanor Roosevelt in the UDHR) is (1) that this ethical system is contrary to nature and evolutionary biology and, thus, (has and) will fail (again) and (2) that this ethical system entails the dishonoring of our ancestors (from which we both descend) who were the greatest race of conquerors in all of the history of this planet.
This race of conquerors is the Aryans (or Indo-Europeans). The Aryan spirit is the noble spirit of conquest. This spirit is how the Aryan race conquered the vast majority of the planet Earth, was the first race to circumnavigate the Earth, was the first race to invent flight, was the first race to cross over into outer-space, and was the first race to land upon another planetary body: the Moon. The drive of our race is to conquer and therefore, to embrace the struggle that is life. This struggle along with war, one manifestation of struggle, is perpetual and existential to life. This drive to conqueror is noble, not ignoble or evil as you suggest. Arya means noble in Sanskrit. No name is more fitting for our race of noble conquerors who vanquished innumerable races of the ignoble conquered. I will not call my ancestors evil for their spirit of war and spirit of conquest are noble. For without that very spirit, I and my ethnic group would not exist. I will not characterize my existence and that of my ancestors as the product of evil on the basis of modern ethical theories that have only existed in force since the early twentieth century. You as one of the thought leaders of White Nationalism and a man of great erudition should not implicitly ask me to do just that.
The nation of Europeans in North American, that is the ethnic group of the Americans, was formed as a result of the genocide of the Amerindian population. Without the dispossession, displacement, destruction, and thus, genocide of the Amerindian population, the nation that both you and I are members of would not exist. I will not support any highly modern moral reasoning that claims that the existence of myself, my family, my ethnic group, and my ancestors was somehow illegitimate or immoral in whole or in part. The settler-colonialism of the British conquerors of North America and their genocide of the Amerindians gave birth to a new Celtic-Germanic or British people who name is the Americans. To the best of my knowledge, I descend wholly from White men and women who conquered the continent at the request of the Crown of the British Empire. I and my kinsmen are products of noble imperialism, and I and my kinsmen descend from conquerors of the Aryan race.
In short, I do not disavow my conquering ancestors who killed Indians and conquered their lands for my benefit, for if I disavow this, then I disavow my ancestors, history, heritage, and ethnic identity. Genocide is only evil if you or your group is on the receiving end. The conqueror justifies his act through his mighty deeds which culminate in a successful conquest. Do not forget that the right of conquest is too a doctrine of international law. The conqueror justifies his conquest through achieving his conquest via armed force over the conquered. He conquers their lands and takes title to them through his right of conquest. Might makes right in both law and logic because this understanding is in harmony with nature as revealed through the process of evolution. Genocide is a fact of life for all plants and animals, including homo sapiens. Might makes right in this world of evolutionary struggle. The rejection of this principle is a rejection of life itself.
As a side note, the same logic applies to my Indo-European Steppe Pastoralist or Aryan ancestors who invaded Western Europe in the Bronze Age and displaced the indigenous Neolithic or Early European Farmers, largely eradicating their languages, cultures, and genes. Those Early European Farmers largely displaced the Western Hunter Gathers when they entered Western Europe.
I thought that you, an outspoken pagan, would not fall back into Christian morality. If you frame this as question as an issue of rhetoric, then I agree. Most of our people reject the hard truths of evolutionary ethics and would be appalled if this website issued apologia for genocide. But as an ethical reality, genocide is permissible and even laudable if one’s attempt is successful. This principle is enshrined in the international law: the right of conquest that justified the European colonization of the Americas.
Second, as you acknowledge, the goal of universal ethno-nationalism which is eternal universal peace between ethnically homogeneous nation-states and the eternal universal stasis of all borders is a Wilsonian pipe dream. Both you and I know this. It was tried and found wanting in that progressive experiment called the League of Nations. The essence of life is struggle, and therefore, involves war, the struggle between human groups. Universal peace is not realistically achievable in any significance even if you view it as desirable. There will be war. It is just a question of what shape that war will take: (1) wars between tribes; (2) wars between empires; (3) wars between nation-states; or (4) wars between the world-state and its non-state actor enemies. When the vanquished group is defeated in war, the victor group typically either kills or enslaves the men and boys and takes the women and girls as spoils of war or decimates the entire population and takes their living space as its own, repopulating its with its own population. This has occurred all throughout human history. The only way to end this cycle of war and genocide is through a dystopian totalitarian, technocentric world-state which would cause the cultural genocide of all (or almost all) peoples and would likely lead to rebellions of non-state state actors that are by necessity subjugated by the power elite of that world state. The only way that the world-state could be created and maintained would be through the development of extremely powerful technologies and the cultivation of extreme technological asymmetries between state and non-state actors. Even then, war cannot end as many non-state actors would likely prefer an noble’s death to a slave’s life because they revere honor and reject the bourgeois morality of the last man who values comfort, peace, and diversion above all. There cannot be a war to end all wars as Wilson understood it. War is a fact of life. It must be embraced, not rejected out of hand.
Also, Adolf Hitler failed Germany by losing the Second World War, committing suicide, and ordering that the industry of Germany be destroyed after his death. He should be seen as less than praise-worthy by the German people and other peoples because of his total military failure, his cowardly, self-indulgent suicide, and his narcissistic and self-indulgent harmful “Nero order” (which thankfully was not fully implemented), not for his so-called ethical failings in his lack of humaneness in how he chose to administer his state’s internment camps in which the labor of a hostile alien race was used for the production of necessary war materials or for the way in which he sought to conquer the Slavs who he perceived to be the existential Bolshevik enemies of his people who sought to conquer Germany along with the rest of Western Europe and convert lands inhabited by German-speaking peoples into that horrible Communist empire known as the Soviet Union. The Slavs showed the Germans in Slavic land no mercy at the end of the war and ethnically cleansed them from their lands. The Russians and Ukrainians did not have clean hands either. They were by and large willing servants of the Bolshevik Empire that sought to destroy Germany. A minority of Russian and Ukrainians acted like Aryan freemen and laid down their lives to resist the Judeo-Bolsheviks who had enslaved them and their family members. These men were honorable, and Adolf Hitler and Erich Koch clearly failed to recognize that and those men suffered for it by their failure of Operation Barbarossa. Please criticize the man for his real failings, not the tangential ethical issues that arise from an application of the Christian-descended ideology of Secular Humanism, which was an ideology that Hitler nobly rejected in his words if not in his deeds.
I respectfully disagree with you and do not seek to attack you. Thank you for your work for our movement.
With respect,
Arthur Desmond
“Most respectfully, these comments echo Christian pacifist platitudes (see the Sermon on the Mount) and the nihilism of the last man at the end of History in my reading of them.”
You read them wrongly. I am not a pacifist or a nihilist. I simply believe that human beings have value and rights, which impose limits on how they can be treated.
“If these moral statements are pure rhetoric in terms of a tactical use of language to achieve a political end, then I have no real argument with you on that point.”
It is amusing that you are reassured by the prospect that I might be lying. But no, I actually think these things.
“(1) that this ethical system is contrary to nature and evolutionary biology and, thus, (has and) will fail (again) and (2) that this ethical system entails the dishonoring of our ancestors (from which we both descend) who were the greatest race of conquerors in all of the history of this planet.”
Basically, you advocate social Darwinism, might is right. Yet you claim there is an imperative to honor the losers of the last war. That’s contradictory. If might is right is the law of nature, then modern liberal democracy is right by those standards.
Modern international law does not recognize the right of conquest or “spheres of influence.” Nor should it.
“I thought that you, an outspoken pagan, would not fall back into Christian morality. If you frame this as question as an issue of rhetoric, then I agree. Most of our people reject the hard truths of evolutionary ethics and would be appalled if this website issued apologia for genocide. But as an ethical reality, genocide is permissible and even laudable if one’s attempt is successful.”
I’m not a Christian. But I believe that if a moral principle is true, it is true for all of us. No, genocide is not good if you get away with it.
“Second, as you acknowledge, the goal of universal ethno-nationalism which is eternal universal peace between ethnically homogeneous nation-states and the eternal universal stasis of all borders is a Wilsonian pipe dream.”
This is a straw man, akin to arguing, “Your proposal to put covers over manholes so children are less likely to fall to their deaths is poppycock, because, after all, no matter what precautions we take, we will all still die.” War will always be possible, but it is a scourge that can be reduced in occurrence and intensity through interstate organizations and international law dedicated to peaceful conflict resolution. The League of Nations failed, due to obvious errors and incompleteness in its execution. But that doesn’t mean that the idea is invalid. It simply needs to be reworked on a larger scale.
Dr. Johnson,
I did not explain my perspective clearly enough it seems.
Basically, you advocate social Darwinism, might is right. Yet you claim there is an imperative to honor the losers of the last war. That’s contradictory. If might is right is the law of nature, then modern liberal democracy is right by those standards.
[…] the autocratic authoritarian (national) socialist (Han ethno-nationalist) state of China is rising to become the world’s super-power by leading the world in industrial production and technological breakthroughs. You must admit that different socio-political models such as Chinese authoritarian national socialism and American multi-racial liberal democracy have different strengths and weaknesses. Given current trends (which both you and I are aware of), it appears that the Chinese model of national socialism (which has many parallels with its historical German counterpart) is a stronger and therefore, more truthful political system than American multi-racial liberal democracy (a system that you criticize often). This is what I mean when I say might makes right. Truth grows from Strength. We know what is true (who holds the truth) by who is strong. I assert that national socialism and/or authoritarian ethno-nationalism are stronger and therefore, more truthful systems of political organization than liberal democracy. The current state of affairs as seen in the simultaneous rising up of the Chinese and Russian empires and the falling down of the American Empire and the European Union demonstrates this.
[…] One must not reject the harsh reality of Life on the Earth: that War is endless and unavoidable. One is either in a state of war or in preparation for a future war. Peace is a temporary illusion (of the unwary), but War is the eternal reality (of the living).
With the utmost respect,
Arthur Desmond
First, I need to ask you to confine your answers to no more than 200 words from now on.
Second, when confronted with the fact that liberal democracy destroyed NS, and that therefore, if you believe Might is Right, you should believe that liberal democracy is Right, you have pivoted to the claim that in a hypothetical future confrontation between the US and China, China would prove stronger. The problem is that whoever is stronger and therefore Right can only be determined after a conflict.
Why don’t you just admit that you think that some regimes are better, regardless of how they stack up in battles with other regimes?
Given the present genocide that the organized Jewish community is orchestrating for all European nations across the globe and thus, the fact that the organized Jewish community now constitutes an existential threat to all European nations across the globe, one can hope that if European nations do in fact have a future and defeat the Jews that are orchestrating our ongoing genocide, some elite statesman in the future will reflect upon the history of the Second World War and state: “The Holocaust did not happen in the way that the Jews forced Aryans to believe by law, but it should have happened in the way that the Jews claimed for Aryan lives would have been saved as a result of its occurrence. The Jew’s lie of the Holocaust (which the Jew forced the Aryan to believe by state violence or the threat of it to impel false guilt into him, to enslave his spirit, and steal his gold and thus, women from him) was not but should have been true. Hitler was too merciful towards his existential racial enemies as a result of his residual Christianity.” In sum, some statesman will make the claim that the Holocaust did not happen but that it should have. At that point, Aryan man will have rejected Christian slave morality and all Judeo-Christian-derived creeds, such as secular humanism and Marxism. He will have overcome his existential enemy and gained knowledge from it.
The Holocaust Mythos is a Jewish lie that we should wish was a truth made so by Aryans. For if the myth was truth, then the odds of Aryan survival would have been greater as we would have had fewer existential enemies to fight in our present existential war for survival in which we are outnumbered and outgunned.
This is cute but dishonest. Your hypothetical future elite statesmen are articulating what a lot of neo-Nazis already believe today: publicly at least, they profess to believe that Hitler didn’t try to exterminate the Jews, but privately they believe he should have. I don’t permit genocide advocates at CC, so I have not inquired too deeply into their real belief system. But I suspect that most of them don’t really believe revisionism. At best, they think it is a clever ploy to undermine the post war order. At worst, they are just echoing what they hear online from their authorities.
Jewish malice against White Americans has inspired policies that are degrading and destroying Whites in America. One of the justifications Jews have for this antiwhite malice is that Jews were once excluded from White country clubs. That Jews had their own country clubs which were wealthier is not seen as relevant. From the Jewish point of view, they should have their own clubs and access to White clubs too, otherwise it’s antisemitic and the right punishment is annihilation of the White race, our race. That’s justice as Jews see it. That’s fair. That’s reasonable and proportionate.
I don’t think the Holocaust matters much for the attitude of Jews toward Whites. Jews are acting to force our race into extinction, and they would do so for any reason, no matter how petty or even imaginary, because they are like that. What we did or didn’t do a century ago doesn’t enter into it.
We need to plan for a future not debate the past. Specifically we need to plan for a good future with us in it, because the Jews are planning for a future with no Whites and we need to offer a good alternative to that.
Cloud busting and Pledges:
How about this for a statement which will stop the Kalergi boys bringing up WWII?
“We are debating migration policy in 2025. Yet some idiot is going to bring up 1930s Germany and WWII, as a reason to import millions more foreigners. If anyone wants to bring up that topic, let us debate why some Zionists financed Hitler, and why Hitler helped 60,000 Zionists to colonise Palestine.”
These statements seem to be generally agreed, but generally regarded as embarassing.
I love the idea of the pledge not to start WWIII. We could do it in snazzy uniforms, with brass bands, banners, torches, songs. The Ulster Unionists did a big Covenant thing pre WWI. Very impressive. The more enthusiastic of us could use a little of our blood to sign the pledge.
The Three Part Happy Ethno-Nationalist Pledge
1. I pledge not to start WWIII, but reserve the right to reasonable retaliation if attacked.
2. I pledge not to commit genocide, even against my enemies, but reserve the right to execute foreigners if they are convicted of murder after a fair trial, with government paid defence lawyers, if required.
3. I pledge not to be cruel or inlict pain, even to animals, execept where strictly necessary to train people or animals to behave better.
Surely everyone, from the most liberal to the most Lebensraum, could sign up to this commonsense pledge?
I suspect you are trying to be funny, but I am not sure.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment