Beullogeo's

Fjordman's latest essay at Gates of Vienna, When Treason Becomes The Norm: Why The Proposition Nation, Not Islam, Is Our Primary Enemy seems to be a move in the right direction. He's talking about treason now, eviscerating the suicide meme he previously flirted with, though without directly disavowing it.

Fjordman intertwines one sour note with an otherwise sensible conclusion. The sensible portions were highlighted in a comment by Eileen O'Connor:

As Sam Francis reminded us, 'every real nation is a country of a common blood. The only nations that claim to be defined by creeds are — come to think of it — totalitarian states. The Soviet Union, a 20th century descendant of the French Revolution, really was a credal nation, and it survived only because it rested on the same Terror that reigned in France. When the common blood dries up and the civilization founded on it withers, all that’s left is the state.'

Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis. After the Second World War, any talk of genetic differences, of being related by blood or of ties to the soil you live on became associated with Nazism and therefore seen as evil. Out of the many things the Nazis destroyed, this was one of the most damaging, but perhaps least appreciated today. I would be tempted to declare the Nazis the most anti-white movement that ever existed, considering the incalculable damage they did to Europeans and people of European origins.

The main reason why we are threatened by outside forces today is because of the notion that our countries should be glorified shopping centers where anybody should be free to enter as they desire. As long as this situation continues, we will never be able to defeat our enemies.

Our primary enemy is the Proposition Nation, not Islam. The only way to restore sanity to our countries is to restore the concept that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage.

Chechar had already responded with a spot-on comment probing Fjordman's most glaring blind spot:

@ “If we make a list of groups or institutions that are promoting the dispossession and destruction of Europeans it would look something like this, starting from the top down: [six culprits]

Why did you left out an important culprit Fjordman, the Jewish involvement in shaping American immigration policy?

As to immigration in Europe, see this video where a Jewess Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement:

Quote:

“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we [the Jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.”

/end quote

I think this blind spot cannot long endure the trajectory Fjordman is on. Here, for the first time I believe, he crosses a line, stepping away from deracinated counter-jihad and toward ethno-racial nationalism. I thought I might help him, and others in a similar quandry, with the portion of his thinking he finds "unfortunate". I left the following comment:

Fjordman,

I like this essay, especially the portions Eileen O'Connor highlighted in her 6/10/2011 10:06 PM comment. Well done. I hope you continue along these lines.

"Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis."

But you do not believe this line of thinking is wrong. It is unfortunate, but unavoidable, that you're having trouble reconciling this with your belief that "the nazis" are evil. The two beliefs cannot co-exist for long.

I hope you realize sooner rather than later that whatever "the nazis" did does not negate the truth or righteousness of nationalism - including the idea "that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage". It means Germany for Germans, Norway for Norwegians, Europe for Europeans. When you can finally say this in full throat you will be denounced as a "nazi". But by then you will understand who does this and why.

This morning I returned to the thread and found the following comment from Fjordman:

Chechar and Tanstaafl are hostile, dishonest debaters. In fact, I wouldn’t call them debaters at all, but rather spammers. They essentially post the same comment over and over again, and it’s not even an interesting or intelligent comment. Tanstaafl: We have nothing in common and I will NEVER join your “team.” You should have realized that by now. You have your own blog and there are plenty of others where you can write about this as much as you want to. You have no right to hijack this website where good people invest their time with little or no pay to create important debates.

I will request that GoV deletes Tanstaafl’s latest comment about the Nazis. Some people have mental faculties that require us to protect them from themselves. Tanstaafl clearly falls under that category. Mr. T: Your presence undermines the very purpose of this website. You have no business being here. I don’t spend countless hours of my free time reading or thinking about interesting subjects to write about for you to come here and destroy everything. Take a hike. And that goes for Chechar, too.

I’m sure Chechar will whine and complain about “censorship,” and he’s free to do so….somewhere else, for instance at his own, not terribly interesting blog which he keeps hijacking our posts here by linking to. I’m also sure he will say that I have “no right” to censor him and that doing so is “cowardice.” He’s wrong on both accounts. Yes, I do. I have every right to tell him that his presence is not wanted on my posts, just like a person has the right to decide who he wants to let into his private home. If I try to keep a tidy house and unwanted people intrude and make a mess of it, I have every right to ask them to leave. It’s not “cowardice” to ask bullies to leave, and that’s what Chechar is: a bully. He’s extremely rude and intrudes where he knows perfectly well that he is not wanted, just like the low-IQ Third World thugs he himself despises.

Discrimination is proper and necessary. Our civilization needs more of it in order to survive and prosper. I choose to discriminate against Chechar based on his rudeness, his lack of logic and his general lack of manners. I also choose to discriminate against Tanstaafl based on his lack of a moral compass and above all his lack of intelligence. There should be an IQ limit to posting here, and Tanstaafl does not qualify. He barely has an IQ much higher than that of your average Muhammedan from the Yemen, and he shares much the same obsession with looking for Jews under his bed.

Bye.

My comment was gone.

As with the puffed-up opprobrium Fjordman heaps upon "the nazis" in his essay, I see in the blind bile in this comment the anger of a man terrified with the implications of his own thoughts. We do indeed have something in common. I passed through counter-jihadism on the way to where I am now. This is why I can see so clearly why his current line of thinking, in favor of nationalism, is colliding with a long-ingrained belief in the diabolical nature of "the nazis". The counter-jihad is a movement focused on what's good for "the jews". I believe Fjordman has claimed to be 100% Norwegian. Whether he considers "the jews" White or Norwegian or not, as long as he stands against the Proposition Nation, especially in preference to "a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage", he will find himself opposed and pilloried by "the jews", not "the nazis".

"The jews" are their own people with their own shared heritage. They have demonstrated time and again that they cannot abide the same in anyone else. Their ancient competitors - the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, and a gaggle of latter day caliphs, kings, queens, czars, and führers - are gone, "the jews" remain.

When Fjordman strikes out at "the nazis" he strikes at an easy target. He telegraphs that he is not an enemy of "the jews". From his previous writings, we know Fjordman thinks highly of "the jews". Whether he holds to this position, it will not fool them. If he is sincere in his move toward a more pro-White/pro-European stand he will realize this eventually. If in the meantime it makes him feel better to imagine himself as a heroic Luke Skywalker rejecting the dirty, rotten, evil, lying Darth Vader, that's fine by me.

Then again it could very well be that Fjordman is insincere - that for whatever reason he still really places the interests of "the jews" above everyone else, but because he has already been criticized for this he is trying to conceal it rather than reconsider it and reorder his priorities. I find this less likely, but time will tell.

- - -

Before I commented on Fjordman's essay, Takuan Seiyo, who I've crossed paths with before, had already made a comment condemning Chechar. Seiyo is of a different, more fundamentally jew-first counter-jihad stripe than Fjordman. He claims to be half-Slav/half-jew, though the latter half dominates both the style and substance of his arguments. As with Lawrence Auster, Seiyo makes the occasional strong statement in favor of native Europeans and critical of "the jews". Then he spends the balance of his efforts making it clear that this is only because he sympathizes with and excuses "the jews". The real problem, in his mind, comes from the evil "anti-semites", "nazis", and other people who criticize "the jews" from a point of view less sympathetic than his own.

With this understanding I made a second comment at GoV:

Takuan Seiyo writes:

"The reason people like Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna, myself and others cannot write more about the Jewish contribution to our destruction is precisely because of those who do, like the comrade above. Their lying about Hitler, Holocaust denial, hobnobbing with Ustashniks and Neo-nazis, obscurantism about the horrors of the Romanovs’ rule that engendered the Bolshevik Revolution (and Jewish participation therein), puts anyone who writes critically about their grand idee-fixe -- Der Juden – in a radioactive chamber, and anyone who cares about truth in the camp of untruth.

The antisemites sabotage the task of saving and boosting the Peoples of Europe (and her diaspora) in two more ways. First, by misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Jews’ motivation in their dysfunctional behavior, they muddle the issue and make it far more difficult to mount effective countermeasures. To be brief, the most accurate – and most bitingly damaging -- statement about the Jewish dysfunction was made not by Duke or MacDonald, but rather by a Jewish comedienne, Julia Gorin, and in direct negation of their and Hitler’s spurious theorizing."

I'll believe Seiyo speaks for Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna when they say he does.

"The antisemites" are Seiyo's grand idee-fixe, his "Der Juden". If they would just be silent, even here on the margins of the internet, then he could finally save us all.

For those who would like to hear what actual White nationalists have to say for themselves, I recommend the following podcasts:

The Nationalist Report: Interview with David Duke, Oct 2010.

Kevin MacDonald's speech at the first National Conference of the American Third Position Party, June 2010.

What these men say should appeal to any White person Fjordman's essay appeals to.

This comment has also been removed. Just below where it appeared, before the response made by Fjordman quoted above, was this comment from Seiyo:

It's either you or me. This blog will have to choose. I feel soiled by being on the same page with you. Unless you are bounced from here, I take a hike. Your response, if any, will get no response from me.

Probably without intending it, Seiyo echoes and confirms the point I was trying to get across to Fjordman. You can pick European nationalism or "the jews". Those who choose their own kind, their nation, over "the jews" will be forced to face the fact, sooner or later, that their enemies, those who demonize and attack them most vehemently, are those who put "the jews" first.

- - -

Hesperado is another commenter on the Fjordman essay that I've previously crossed paths with. The comments in that post touch on Seiyo, Fjordman, and the counter-jihad as well.

Chechar has also discussed Fjordman at his blog.

France's National Front: Le Pen, mightier than the sword?, The Economist, 5 May 2011:

UP CLOSE, the most unnerving thing about Marine Le Pen is not her obsession with Islam, her populism or her divisive politics—but the way she oozes charm. With a ready laugh and unaffected manner, this steely politician deflects awkward questions with an easy grace that makes her a rarity in French politics. The newish leader of the far-right National Front is an intriguing study in how to make extremist politics marketable—and in doing so, perhaps to reshape French party politics.

In the short run, Ms Le Pen wants to decontaminate the National Front, stripping it of the skin-headed image it had under her father, Jean-Marie. At the party’s annual May 1st rally, she surrounded herself with fresh-faced young women in jeans and T-shirts. Her father, a former paratrooper, perfected a line in anti-Semitic and xenophobic outrage. She shares much of his programme, such as support for the death penalty and job preference for French nationals. But she has junked the anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi sidekicks in favour of a subtler tone. “When I talk about the immigration problem, I don’t talk out of hate, or xenophobia, or Islamophobia, or fear,” she insists, but pragmatism. “We cannot afford to let everybody in.”

Across Europe, traditional divisions between left and right have blurred, Ms Le Pen argues, giving way to a new fracture between those who believe in globalisation, international governance and open borders, and those who believe in the primacy of the nation. In her eyes President Nicolas Sarkozy and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF and a likely Socialist candidate, are “interchangeable”: standard-bearers for a globalised world view. By contrast, she wants a return to national sovereignty, a withdrawal from the euro (“before it collapses”) and NATO (“submission to America”), the return of border controls and an unapologetic protectionist policy to “re-industrialise France”.

For under scrutiny, many of Ms Le Pen’s ideas, when not toxic, are deeply flawed. France cannot compete with China on cost, she says, so better to put up borders, go for a competitive devaluation and start building factories at home again. She dismisses worries about the colossal cost of protectionism or of debt-servicing with a devalued currency as scaremongering. For now, such details have yet to spoil the seductive simplicity of her message. And this will keep her a highly disruptive figure in the run-up to 2012 and beyond.

Unlike DSK, Marine Le Pen has never been accused of committing a crime, violent or otherwise. However, as made clear by the defamatory, accusatory opinion quoted above - fairly typical of the limited coverage Le Pen receives in English-language media - Le Pen is regarded with a poisonous cynicism, a combination of fear and loathing that would elicit outraged cries and condemnations of "hate" if it were directed at any representative of immigrants or jews. Le Pen, like all European nationalists, is treated to a different standard, worse than any accused rapist. She's undeniably popular with the native French, who for perfectly normal reasons would like to be led by someone, anyone who actually favors them over aliens. Naturally this frightens and disgusts anyone who loves aliens and hates the French.

The double standard was clearly visible amid the empassioned cacaphony following the arrest of DSK. The realization that the scandal would likely improve Le Pen's prospects frightened certain pundits so much that they couldn't help but couple their open-minded reminders that DSK is innocent until proven guilty with cognitive-dissonance-inducing paranoia and hang-wringing over Le Pen. The most egregious examples I've found are Doug Schoen and Anne Applebaum. I don't think it's any coincidence that while neither one is French, both are jews.

UPDATE 20 May 2011: Marine Le Pen becomes Front National leader: A pivotal moment for French politics? - Telegraph, by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, 16 Jan 2011:

It's a measure of the inroads Marine Le Pen has already made in the French political debate that she now splits opinion among the rarefied world of Parisian intellectuals.

On the one hand, the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy still thinks she reeks of sulphur: according to him, the youngest daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, 82, the longstanding Front National leader, is "even more dangerous than her father".

Yet on the other Elisabeth Lévy, the shrewd editor of Causeur magazine, the French answer to The Spectator, considers not only that Marine Le Pen "says nothing scandalous or morally unacceptable", but also that she might well "be truly breaking away from the old French extreme-Right, to create something new."

It's a measure of just how un-French "French" political debate is that Moutet cites two jews as representative, even though they are members of a powerful, exclusive ethnic group who comprise less than 1% of the overall population.

[Marine's father, Jean-Marie] Le Pen, an orphaned Breton fisherman's son, tried to join the Résistance in 1944, and later fought in Algeria and in the Suez expedition.

But he made his indelible mark in French politics by obsessively picking at the scabs of the country's dark past. He boasted of using torture in Algeria to combat terrorism; called the gas chambers "a point of detail" of the Second World War; used time-and-motion calculations to dispute the number of Auschwitz victims; and described France's German occupiers as "very civilised".

He was several times condemned under French incitement laws - all of which he used to paint himself as a larger-than-life pariah in the too-tame, self-referential world of French politics.

Le Pen is being painted as a pariah here for having the audacity to try to represent his people. Let's be honest. Is there anyone who picks more obsessively at scabs from the past (like Auschwitz) than jews do? Argue with them, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, and you're painted as dangerous. Don't argue, like Marine Le Pen, and you're painted as worse.

At 42, a handsome, single working mother of three, she presents herself as the young, modern face of the Front National, in sharp contrast to her defeated opponent in the Party leadership contest, the 60-year-old academic Bruno Gollnisch, under whose banner the Party's residual hardliners had sought an increasingly exiguous shelter.

In the Gollnisch camp gather the "tradis", the traditionalist Catholics who are horrified by Marine's support of gay rights - short of gay marriage - and refusal to support abolition of the 1975 law permitting abortion. (She says she only wants all provisions of the law strictly applied, so that women are first offered "alternatives" such as pre-natal adoption.)

No-one in France will admit to anti-Semitism, which is actionable by law, but campaign rumours from the Gollnisch camp included descriptions of Marine's entourage as "full of Jews, queers and Arabs".

Actionable by law is an innocuous way of saying that in France you can be persecuted for making elementary observations like the ones I just have. Meanwhile no special laws prevent jews living in France from saying whatever they wish about the French.

It is interesting that two personalities she quoted positively during a half-hour conversation were two Jews: Simone Veil, the former health minister and European Parliament president, who first introduced the abortion bill, and Elisabeth Badinter, the left-wing feminist author.

It is interesting how jews keep coming up in Moutet's piece. Is she jewish? At any rate, the impression Moutet creates is that what's most important about Le Pen is what jews think about her, not what she thinks about anything. And never mind what the French think either.

Two sensible questions may come to mind as you contemplate wading through the following text: Who is Laura Wood and why should I care what she thinks?

Beyond the blog posts linked below I don't know who Laura Wood is or why she thinks what she thinks. I understand that Wood and Lawrence Auster regard each other highly. I suspect that, as with Auster, Wood's readers include more than a few Whites who are more or less displeased with the anti-White regime but have yet to understand it in such terms.

Like Auster, Wood is a social critic who strikes a faux-White pose. Like Auster, Wood hosts earnest-sounding, carefully managed discussions of "liberalism". Jews are mentioned in these discussions, but only to ultimately minimize their role and excuse them. The most serious condemnations are directed at Whites.

A few days ago Wood made a series of blog posts along these lines. She began the first post, titled Rejecting the "White Nationalist" Label, by quoting Lawrence Auster:

White nationalists are material-racial reductionists who, like Nazis, treat race as the single all-determining factor of human existence, so that human beings are in effect automata controlled by their race. I treat race as one very important determining factor in human existence, along with many other factors. And I am not a material reductionist. Material/racial factors can be the controlling factors; for example, if you change a formerly all-white city into a half black city, certain effects will inevitably ensue. At the same time, material/racial factors are not the only factors, especially at the individual level. But the material/racial force of sheer numbers will overwhelm any individual exceptions.

Auster regards his most hated enemies as automata controlled by a spontaneous hate for jews and projects his own materialist, racialist, reductionist thinking onto them. He started off by commenting on the "asians in the library" controversy, quickly shifted into a critique of White nationalism, and then broadened the bashing to Whites in general, blaming us for imposing genocidal open borders and diversity on ourselves (his emphasis):

Once a white country through its immigration policy makes itself conspicuously nonwhite, the former, white identity of the country is seen as something wicked and disgusting, and the former white majority is seen as racist, particularly by members of that former majority. The very act of the country becoming conspicuously nonwhite and diverse results in the psychological imperative that everything must conform to the new, diverse identity of the country. If diversity is what we are and is good, then whiteness is bad. Thus any remnant, and any remaining expression, of the former white majority is seen as suspect and threatening. That's one of the ways in which mass nonwhite immigration is the path to national suicide. It turns the white population against itself.

Auster's analysis conveniently overlooks jewish culpability in opening the borders, changing the identity of the country, and making White identity something wicked and disgusting. Auster is aware of this jewish culpability. Roughly two years ago he wrote in response to a correspondent Boris S. in The BNP versus the rulers of the Dead Island:

You write:

"On the other hand, one may claim that Jewish leftists are seeking to harm non-Jews in order to advance an ethnocentric agenda. [This] view is anti-Semitic and false..."

But there's much evidence that it is true. Numerous Jewish spokesman have said, not just in recent times, but in past decades, that America's white Anglo-Saxon Christian majority is oppressive to Jews and other minorities, and even that it poses a potential threat of much worse oppression, and that the only way for the Jews to be safe in America is to reduce the percentage and power of the white Christian majority by means of diverse immigration. To seek to turn the historic non-Jewish white Christian majority of this country into a minority, out of the conviction that that majority is oppressive and malign, is certainly to seek to harm non-Jews.

In his current critique Auster also neglects to mention the jewish origins of the "diversity" template "minorities" use - loudly pathologizing and demonizing the White enemy for being insensitive to non-White interests. Auster attributes this template to "liberalism", and for it he blames Whites alone:

This radically changed national consciousness inaugurates the three character liberal "script" I've often spoken of. The first character in the script is the liberal white, who embodies the non-discriminatory virtue of the liberal regime. The second character is any white who is seen as non-liberal or merely insufficiently liberal. He represents the principle of evil which must be suppressed. The third character is the nonwhite Other, who is not a moral actor in the script but only a sacred object. His role is to be either "included" by the good, liberal white or "excluded" by the bad, non-liberal white. The moral conflict in the story is not between the whites and the nonwhite, it's between the "good," non-discriminatory white and the "evil," discriminatory white, fighting over how to treat the nonwhite Other.

As is often the case Auster's critique of "liberalism" sheds much light on his own motives and methods. In this case he starts by declaring White nationalists bad because they wish to exclude the jewish Other, and then later in the same conversation reveals that some part of his brain understands this behavior of his is a "script" which "liberal whites" act out.

In a comment at Laura Wood's blog Auster makes the jewish terms of his "liberal white script" objection to White nationalists more plain:

While I never described myself as one, I didn’t mind it when others called me one. But in more recent years I became aware that literally every blogger who identifies as a white nationalist is (a) a material racial reductionist who thinks that race determines everything; and (b) a serious anti-Semite or a fellow traveler with serious anti-Semites.

Setting aside the initial strawman portion, Wood emphatically agrees with Auster about the portion putting jewish interests first:

If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.

When it comes down to choosing, Auster and Wood choose to oppose the rest of us who want a choice.

Like Auster, Wood laboriously selects and publishes only the comments she wishes to appear. After she truncated and mischaracterized my first comment at her blog (see the comments here) we had a brief exchange via email in which she confided that: "the reason why I dropped your comment was that we do not have enough in common". Fair enough. It's also fair then to say that the remarks Wood does publish do have enough in common with her thinking.

Wood continues her moderated discussion in The Problem with White Nationalism, cont., beginning with a lengthy comment from Boris S. (who may very well be the same person Auster responded to on his own blog two years ago):

The essential difference between the so-called "white nationalist" tribalism and the organization of Jews, which the "white nationalists" seek to emulate, is that the Jews point to a common four-thousand-year-old religion, with a shared culture, historical memory, and transcendental hopes. The "white nationalists," on the other hand, want to impose a totally new tribal organization, invented out of thin air, on a group that has never constituted--that is, never saw itself as--a single nation, people, or tribe. "Whites" are not, and never have been, a people, in the sense that one speaks of the "Jewish people."

Furthermore, no matter how much "white nationalists" deny their ideological affinity with Hitlerian National Socialism, the latter remains the only movement to have tried to reorganize the European nations into a single race-tribe, itself differentiated according to an internal racial hierarchy. The crippling blow to Western civilization, that may yet turn out to be a deathblow, which has been wrought by Nazism, does not seem to give much pause to the soi-disant "white nationalists" who claim to "defend Western civilization." One would like to know what that oft-invoked "Western civilization" means to such people. Does it refer to the individual freedoms granted by the Western democracies? Does it mean Western music, art, literature? The Western philosophical tradition? The Christian religion? One suspects it is merely a suitably noble-sounding call to arms, perhaps to be replaced by some other catch-phrase when its use has run out. To this, "white nationalists" would protest that, unlike Nazism, their movement does not promote violence and war. This objection cannot be taken seriously for two reasons. First, because the movement seeks to overturn the present political and social order, it is by nature revolutionary, and, like all revolutionary movements, it will one day face the necessity of the use of violence if it seriously hopes to achieve its goals. Second, because Western societies are not "racially homogenous" according to the understanding of the "white nationalists" themselves, their desired order will inevitably create classes of "racial aliens" who would resent their sudden status as outsiders and would have to be dealt with somehow. It is amusing to note that many "white nationalists" deny the revolutionary nature of their movement as they try to claim what they take to be the "prestigious" mantle of "true conservatism" or "reaction."

These are some of the nasty consequences of the "white nationalist" program. It is important to add that the ideology does not withstand theoretical criticism, because many of its claims about human history and human societies are basically incorrect. Racial tribalism as a mode of thought is alien to Western tradition, and has become widespread only in the late 19th century, when it could be based upon Darwinism and its naturalistic (or "zoological") view of man, and when masses of men disoriented by the fall of the feudal order and the havoc of industrial capitalism sought a new identity to give them meaning and a sense of belonging. It is true that the demographic changes now sweeping the Western world are in part made possible by what could be called "anti-racism" or "reverse racism," an essentially revolutionary attitude that denies to those nation-states it sees as "white" any right to defense against "non-white" invaders (and is also responsible for affirmative action). This attitude, which does not rise to the level of ideology (with the possible exception of a few revolutionary socialist groups that have attempted to articulate it), is a diseased reaction to the likewise diseased fit of racism which took hold of the West approximately from 1880 to 1950. But the demographic changes are also made possible by the shrinking of the world due to modern technology, and receive their impetus from technological and economic forces. In other words, what the racialists see as the preserved "racial purity" of Europe until the second half of the 20th century, is not the result of a nonexistent tradition of racial tribalism, but simply the expected absence of rapid change in the pre-industrial era. This brings us to another problem with the "white nationalist" ideology: what today we would call "ethnic mixing" has happened continuously for millennia between peoples who lived within accessible geographic distances. Thus, unless we deny the common origin of mankind (at which point we could no longer claim scientific backing or any connection with Western tradition) we cannot treat "the white race" as an objectively fixed entity.

The only good thing that can be said of "white nationalism" is that it gives comfort to some individuals who, in having been deprived of any adequate outlet for their creative energies and a stable community, have been among the unfortunate victims of modernity. But apart from the theoretical problems and the necessary violence and immorality that would flow from any attempt to implement "white nationalism" in America, the ideology, in its obsession with race and its beside-the-point pursuit of scientific justification, seems to have no answer to the problems any serious political thinker today would have to deal with, including the overwhelming role of technological and economic forces in constraining the freedom of modern man, the prevailing antihumanist ethos of Enlightened or bourgeois utilitarianism which holds human beings to be valuable only insofar as they happen to be "useful" (however this is to be defined, whether by the state or the "free market"), the related contempt for philosophy, religion, and contemplation, or the superficial scientism and "secular humanism" (a sort of cheap tribalism from which "white nationalism" differs only in the scope of the designated tribe) that dominate respectable discourse. Considering either the silence or the incredible shallowness of "white nationalism" on such matters, the movement seems to be rather one more symptom of the pathology.

As with Auster and Wood, Boris' argument is based on a personal conviction that White nationalism is bad for jews. As I tried to point out in the comment Wood truncated, this argument is beside the point. Whites are distinct from jews. White nationalism is premised on what is good for Whites, not what is good for jews. Auster and Wood both dodge this argument by treating jews and Whites as one inseparable "white", and do so even as they distinguish jews for special treatment.

Unlike Auster and Wood Boris doesn't pretend to sympathize with Whites. He doesn't pretend Whites and jews are one inseparable "white". He belittles White attempts to organize politically to debate and pursue our interests, and does so specifically in contrast with jews.

Wood published Boris's boorish comment and followed it with another:

Robert Gray writes:

It's ironic that the Jew-mongers would describe Auster as a "Jewish fifth columnist" when they themselves drive white Americans away from the cause with their incessant talk of Jews and Jewish influence. The typical white nationalist site, in its content, comments, and links, repels whites because we are not utterly obsessed with Jews and have no sympathy with neo-Nazism, Fascism, and Holocaust denial. I've tried to reason with those afflicted with Jew-mania, but reason and logic have no effect. They cannot see the damage they do. Indeed, I don't think they care. For their concern is proving that Jews are evil, rather than securing the interests of white people.

Auster describes himself a jewish fifth columnist, and Gray's demonizing of "jew-mongers" "afflicted with jew-mania" echoes Auster's "liberal white script". It is a blunt attempt to pathologize Whites who identify jewish sources of anti-White hostility. Gray's 17-point position statement, offered as advocacy of ostensibly "white ethnic interests", comprises four points distinguishing and advocating anti-"nazi"/jewish ethnic interests:

12. Nazi Germany was not good for the white race. It made war on European states and killed millions of white people. To claim that Hitler or the Nazis were "pro-white" is utterly absurd.

13. In World War II, the Nazi leadership deliberately attempted to kill all the Jews in Europe. They did this by the use of shootings, confinement, forced labor, random murder, death camps, and gas chambers. The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was on the order of millions. Had Nazi Germany won the war, they would probably have succeeded in killing all the Jews in the world.

14. White ethno-states should be democratic and libertarian. They should not be fascist or totalitarian states as, for example, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

15. Jews are not the root of all evil. Jews do not force white people to act against their own self-interests. Whites undermine their ethnic interests of their own free will. In general, we should avoid talking about Jews and Jewish influence. Ultimately, it is counter-productive. And in any case, we should not advocate for the harm of Jews or the destruction of Israel.

Later in the exchange Wood permits Van Wijk to play down the danger posed by jews to Whites while playing up the danger posed by Whites who don't:

It is no secret that the majority of American Jews are leftists; so are a great many whites. Since leftist Jews are in most cases racially and culturally white, and since they are too few and pacifistic to pose a physical threat, they can be lumped in with white leftists as a whole and dealt with in the same manner. The problem with the Jew-haters is that they tend to ignore or play down the danger posed by demonstrably violent peoples. Solve the problem of Jewish influence, they say, and all other problems will solve themselves. Every time I’ve asked a Jew-hater what to do about Mestizos or Muslims, the response has been that they can be dealt with “in a straightforward manner.” No one but the Jews are on the Jew-hater’s radar, and Jews are (naturally) responsible for most of the evil in the world. For this reason, the proper response to the likes of Cesar “Himmler is my friend” Tort is to delete his emails and otherwise ignore him. Since Jewish influence looms large in the mind of the Jew-hater and can never be resolved while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage them is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”

Wood's campaign against Whites who distinguish ourselves from jews continues in The Jew-Hater’s Radar, where she takes special note of Van Wijk's comment and permits Auster to perfect the last sentence:

Since in the minds of the Jew-haters the Jews are the ultimate cause of all the evils facing society, and since, therefore, none of those evils can be solved or even dealt with while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage the Jew-haters is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”

Auster, Wood, Boris, Van Wijk, Gray and others who think and speak as they do, like Mark Richardson, make sweeping negative pronouncements about Whites just as easily as they do about "jew-haters". Behind their double-talk about "whites" and "liberalism" is an underlying hyper-awareness of jewish interests and a primal, uncompromising drive to defend them.

Amidst the other posts linked above Wood also wrote A Recommendation Retracted:

EARLIER THIS week, I recommended a new website Faith and Heritage. I regret my hasty enthusiasm for a new venture. Disappointingly, Faith and Heritage is beset with the same viral tendency that afflicts many sites that defend white heritage: anti-Semitism.

The passage Wood objected to was contained in a review of The Social Network from a Christian point of view:

Lacking the Christian sense of fair play and good sportsmanship (that even nominal, cultural Christians like the Winklevoss still largely possess, and reinforced through athletics), nursing resentments against our culture and people, the temptation to cheat is almost impossible for them to overcome. The lesson for Christians is simple: avoid dealings with Jews, for they are too risky.

Wood demonstrates here her willingness to condemn even a nominally White spiritual defense as pathological. Her "script", as Auster so helpfully described it, is that Whites (in this case Christians) who exclude the jewish Other are "bad".

Jamie Kelso's March 1st podcast brought to my attention the article "Andrew Johnson Reconsidered", which was published in the March 1998 issue of Wilmot Robertson's Instauration.

Though Johnson's oratory was noted for its style, the substance was equally impressive. An outspoken man, to put it mildly, today he would be consigned to the ranks of the insensitive at best or the bigoted at worst. Some of his most amusing outbursts were downright racist. In terms of bombast, he could have given any black preacher a run for his money. Of a pro-black voting rights bill, he said:

It would place every splay-footed, bandy-shanked, hump-backed, thick-lipped, flat-nosed, woolly headed, ebon-colored Negro in the country upon an equality with the poor white man.

His racial philosophy left little room for interpretation:

This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men .... This whole vast continent is destined to fall under the control of the Anglo-Saxon race-the governing and self-governing race.

His reasons for feeling as he did are well-documented:

[The] black race of Africa were inferior to the white man in point of intellect-better calculated in physical structure to undergo drudgery and hardship-standing, as they do, many degrees lower in the scale of gradation that expressed, the relative relation between God and all that he had created than the white man.

The following statement, made in 1866, cannot be easily dismissed today, 135 years after Negro emancipation:

The peculiar qualities which should characterize any people who are fit to decide upon the management of public affairs for a great state have seldom been combined. It is the glory of white men to know that they have had these qualities in sufficient measure to build upon this continent a great political fabric and to preserve its stability for more than ninety years, while in every other part of the world all similar experiments have failed. But if any­ thing can be proved by known facts, if all reasoning upon evidence is not abandoned, it must be acknowledged that in the progress of nations Negroes have shown less capacity for government than any other race or people. No independent government of any form has ever been successful in their hands. On the contrary, wherever they have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism.

Johnson didn't mince words about the Negro problem. Even though there wasn't much of a Jewish problem in the U.S. in those days, he was not loath to speak up whenever a Hebrew was in need of a dressing-down. Florida's David Levy Yulee, the first Jew to serve in the U.S. Senate, was berated as a "contemptible little Jew." Of Louisiana Senator Judah Benjamin (later to become Attorney General, Secretary of War and ultimately Secretary of State in the Confederacy), Johnson said, "There's another Jew --­that miserable Benjamin! He looks on a country and a government as he would on a suit of old clothes. He sold out the old one; and he would sell out the new if he could in so doing make two or three million." Benjamin was further lambasted as being of "that tribe that parted the garments of our Savior and for his vesture cast lots." In pre-ADL days, however, such bold comments were not career killers. Of course, if we had speeches like that in Congress today, C-Span would be a real ratings puller.

As a baseborn white, Johnson instinctively distrusted the Southern planter class, which wielded so much power in western and central Tennessee. Johnson represented the mountainous, eastern part of the state, where the residents tended towards yeomanry. He found that no matter how high he rose in politics, no matter how prosperous he was in his private life, he was never accepted by his "betters." His particular brand of populism may have been inspired as much by his own experience as by his reverence for the Constitution:

The aristocracy in this district know that I am for the people....They know that I love and desire the approbation of the freemen of this State....The fact of a farmer or mechanic stepping out of the field or shop into an office of distinction and profit, is particularly offensive to an up­ start, swelled headed, iron heeled, bobtailed aristocracy, who infest all of our little towns and villages, who are too lazy and proud to work for a livlihood [sic], and are afraid to steal.

Though easier said than done, his recommendations for a robust republic still resonate:

I want no rabble here on one hand, and I want no aristocracy on the other. Lop off the aristocracy at one end, and the rabble at the other, and all will be well with the republic.

His antipathy to the plantation aristocracy was not just class envy. Johnson blamed it for fanning the flames of secession for its own benefit-certainly not for the benefit of the poor whites who formed the core of his constituency and had to bear the brunt of battle after secession.

I am for a government based on and ruled by industrious, free white citizens, and conducted in conformity with their wants, and not a slave aristocracy. I am for this government above all earthly possessions, and if it perish I do not want to survive it. I am for it though slavery be struck from existence and Africa be swept from the balance of the world ... .If you persist in forcing this issue of slavery against the government, I say, in the face of heaven, give me my government and let the Negro go!

In other words, the welfare of the country is more important than the status of the Negro, be he slave or free man. In Johnson's time, as in our own, too many people of influence and power have these priorities reversed.

It isn't clear from the article which of Johnson's quotes came before, during, or after his term as president in the wake of America's most fratricidal, uncivil war. At the very least readers today can see that 90-odd years after Thomas Jefferson asserted the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal" there were still White leaders at the very top who believed Whites could and should govern Whites "to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". You know, the kind of thing recent US presidents believe about jews.

White Supremacist David Lynch Shot in Head at Home, ABC, Russell Goldman, 4 March 2011:

One of the country's leading white supremacists was gunned down in his California home, shot in the head and torso as his pregnant girlfriend watched, police said.

David Lynch, 40, an organizer for the American Front, one of the country's oldest skinhead groups, was killed in his home early Wednesday morning. Lynch's 33-year-old girlfriend, who is five months pregnant, was shot in the leg.

Soon after police responded to the 911 call, they arrested Charles Demar, 36, another white supremacist and acquaintance of Lynch. Authorities are calling Demar "a person of interest." They charged him with drug possession.

Since the 1980s, Lynch has been on the radar of law enforcement and organizations that monitor hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Lynch as a "clever and charismatic racist skinhead organizer whose history of racist activism dates back to the late 1980s."

Lynch rose through the ranks of California's skinhead movement, consolidating power and ultimately uniting once rival racist organizations throughout the state, as well as in Utah, Florida and Canada, according to the SPLC. In 2005, he met with then-National Alliance chairman William Pierce, perhaps the most prominent American neo-Nazi, when Pierce visited Sacramento, according to SPLC.

The Anti-Defamation League calls the American Front one of the "oldest continuously active racist skinhead groups in the United States."

On its website the group describes itself as "a collective of highly motivated racialists of European descent, striving to establish an autonomous homeland for American whites, dedicated to securing, advancing, and defending the sacred blood of our glorious ancestors at all costs." Since his death, white supremacists have taken to the Internet to mourn Lynch.

On the Website of White Revolution, a caption under his photo reads "Hero, Patriot, and Friend."

Writing on the same site, Billy Roper, whom the SPLC calls "the uncensored voice of violent neo-Nazism," wrote: "Dave Lynch: My Friend, and one of the best men I've ever known, a hero of our people and our cause. We are in shock."

White supremacist David Lynch shot dead, Calif. police arrest "person of interest", CBS, Camille Mann, 4 March 2011.

Police have arrested a person of interest in the killing of prominent white supremacist David Lynch, a chief organizer of the skinhead movement in the 1980s.

David Lynch, white supremacist leader of the American Front, shot dead in California home: cops, NY Daily News, Aliyah Shahid, 4 March 2011:

Lynch was the leader of the American Front, which according to the Anti-Defamation League is one of the "oldest continuously active racist skinhead groups in the United States." He began working as an organizer for the group in the 1980s.

"The group espouses an anti-Semitic, white supremacist ideology and disseminates its message in public events that demonize Jews, immigrants, and other minorities," the ADL says on its website.

Lynch's acquaintances told The Bee that Lynch was working as an asbestos removal contractor. The doormat in front of his home read, "Come back with a warrant."

Local gang expert Lt. Milo Fitch described Lynch to CBS News as "one of the most well known and influential figures in the white supremacist movement."

'This is a significant event in the white supremacist world - it will send shock waves," he added.

The Associated Press: Skinhead leader killed in shooting at Calif. home, AP, 4 March 2011:

Authorities say a leading white supremacist known for organizing skinhead groups has been fatally shot at his Northern California home.

Skinheads In Sacramento: The death of David Lynch brings bad memories to past victims of white hate groups, Fox KTXL Sacramento, Lonnie Wong, 4 March 2011:

The death of white supremacist organizer David Lynch, founder of the group American Front, was a suprise to victims of hate violence in the Sacramento area.

"I didn't know there was a leader so prominent living in our community," said Sacramento County supervisor Jimmie Yee. Yee's home was firebombed in 1993 by Richard Campos, a teenaged white supremacist who grew up near his neighborhood.

Yee said hate crimes have no place in Sacramento and that Lynch's death was a wake-up call. Lynch was found shot in the head in his Citrus Heights home. He was one of the nation's best known hate-group leaders and was described as charismatic by those who track hate-groups and their leaders.

"It's disturbing," said Sacramento City council member Jay Schenirer who is the president of the B'nai Israel synagogue, one of three in the area that were firebombed in what is known as the "Summer of Hate," in 1999.

Lt. Milo Fitch, a gang unit officer who tracked white hate groups for the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, said it's not suprising tht neighbors didn't know Lynch's history. Lynch often wore khaki pants and button-up shirts, according to intelligence from hate watch organizations. Clothing and tattoos don't necessarily define an ideology.

"Many of them come from middle class families, not from the lower socio-economic groups you find with other gang members," said Fitch.

Yee says the community should be aware of groups that take a lower profile.

"That type of organization is still very active and they'll do anything to cover up their activities," said Yee.

Schenirer said they have to take a more sophisticated preventative approach to dealing with young people who are recruited by hate-groups. That means education programs for middle and high school students.

"The intervention after it's happened aren't going to work really well. We need to the community to work on the prevention side of it," said Schenirer.

In a few more years these same people will be surprised and disturbed to discover they have any White neighbors, period.

A man killed in a Citrus Heights home has been positively identified as David Lynch, a skinhead leader and founder of branches of the group American Front, KTXL, 4 March 2011:

The shooting investigation remains on-going, and anyone with information should contact the Citrus Heights Police Department's Tip Line at (916) 727-5524 and reference CHPD Case number 1102586.

White supremacist leader killed in Calif, MSNBC, 4 March 2011:

Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told msnbc.com that Demar is also a white supremacist who goes by the name Charlie Boot. He is the lead singer of Stormtroop 16, a white-power rock 'n' roll band, Potok said.

[Citrus Heights police Lt. Gary] Hendricks told KXTV police are investigating whether Lynch's death is related to an association with skinhead groups.

"We're following up leads in regards to (Lynch being part of a skinhead organization) based on a rumor that is actually coming from the media, not from us," Hendricks told the TV station. "So we're following up with regards to that as well. That is part of our investigation as well."

Organizations that monitor hate groups described Lynch as an influential white supremacist with a two-decade-plus history of racial activism.

"I would describe him as a former first-tier leader in the '90s. He was very well-known, especially on the racist skinhead scene. He was a bright and charismatic man and also a man sometimes with incredible potential for violence," said Potok of the SPLC.

According to his enemies, David Lynch was a bad person. It is a measure of their influence that within hours of Lynch's murder every major media outlet has quickly broadcast their negative views, not as a paid advertisement or op-ed, but as raw, supposedly objective news. Lynch's own words, and the reactions of his friends and supporters, are either not mentioned or are minimized. While several reports cite and even link to the non-White supremacist ADL and SPLC as authorities, none link Lynch's own American Front.

American Front defines itself in Fighting For the White Worker Since 1984!:

Who We Are

We are a collective of highly motivated racialists of European descent, striving to establish an autonomous homeland for American whites.

We are dedicated to securing, advancing, and defending the sacred blood of our glorious ancestors at all costs.

We will work to promote our values, goals and ideals so that this and future generations of our folk will not be enslaved by the greed of Capitalism, the oppression of Communism, or the disgrace of multiculuralism.

We believe in White unity first and foremost, putting petty and personal differences aside to concentrate on the real issues of our dying race.

We do not pollute our bodies with drugs or excessive drinking, as we attempt to live as man was intended with pure mind, body, and race.

We believe that we must be as self sufficient as possible, first in our own daily lives then in our nation.

We accept many different political stances as long as race is the first component of their platform.

We accept any religion unless it contradicts racial law.

We feel the struggle of our people is not a gender specific issue therefore both men and women are accepted as full members.

We strive to make sure our membership is comprised of quality individuals; solid comrades are the backbone of solid organizations.

We believe in the re-institution of the morality, strength, and honor of our revolutionary forefathers.

We will heed the call in defense of all that is sacred to our family, race, and nation.

We are Greyshirts, and if you are a loyal white racialist, we believe in you!

I had not previously heard of David Lynch. If, like me, you're curious what it is that he believed that so disturbs the ADL and SPLC, then you'll want to read Commonly Asked Questions & Answers Concerning the American Front.

The people who hate David Lynch hate Whites for being White.

Paul Fromm talked about Lynch in his most recent podcast, The Fighting Side of Me: In Memoriam, David Lynch at Voice of Reason.

In RIP Dave Lynch at Occidental Dissent, Andrew Yeoman writes:

For those unfamiliar with Dave he was a lifelong advocate of white people and worked tirelessly to bring justice to our people. Lynch was a driven and highly motivated leader and charismatic man that led a turbulent yet increasingly effective community of men and women in the skinhead scene and beyond.

Raised in San Francisco during the 1980′s, he is survived by two daughters and an unborn child.

Dave was a great man. I knew Dave as a tough, street smart, and passionate man who deeply loved his family, the future of our people, and the legacy of white advocates such as Bob Mathews and surviving members of The Order.

I will miss his guidance and laughter like the loss of my own brother.

David Lynch wanted what I want. I'm eager to learn more about Lynch and the skinhead scene. Comments with information and links to other coverage are requested.

I have lately been enjoying Jamie Kelso's podcast at Voice of Reason, in particular his readings from and commentary on Wilmot Robertson's book The Ethnostate.

For many Whites, even those who are beginning to awaken to the increasingly hostile conditions around us, the name David Duke rings a giant Pavlovian bell. In "polite" discourse allusions to Duke function as a variant of Reductio ad Hitlerum, often accompanied by snide insinuations about pointy hoods, lynching, and - underneath it all - "anti-semitism".

Whether or not you believe David Duke is mentally or morally defective, if you've never heard him speak for himself then please consider this invitation to judge for yourself. Listen to The Nationalist Report: Interview with David Duke, with Mishko Novosel and Mike Conner at Voice of Reason Broadcast Network.

I take special interest in a point Duke makes early on about what happens when someone finally comes to recognize and throw off a lifetime of anti-White guilt-tripping. For myself, part of that process resulted from reading and hearing the thoughts of certain purported madmen, Duke among them, and realizing that their positions are perfectly rational and reasonable. In this interview, which Duke describes as unlike any other he's given in a long time, he expresses one rational and reasonable thought after another.

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit.

Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848.

Via Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Steny Hoyer: Members are at risk - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the majority whip, said Democrats and Republicans should continue to speak out on these threats. “Silence gives consent,” Clyburn said.

But Minority Leader John Boehner already has condemned threats of violence — and sought to explain why people are so angry.

“I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner said. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let's do it the right way."

Whites are angry exactly because we have already tried "the right way". We called congress, wrote letters, went to town hall meetings, organized and attended Tea Party protests - and all of it got us nowhere. We know we're getting screwed - whether by immigration, bailouts, or healthcare. We know the politicians know we object. We have been misled into believing that the politicians are driven by votes. It's beginning to dawn on us that the leadership of both parties dance to a different tune.

Why shouldn't we be angry? We can see that when blacks and browns speak out and march the media and politicians behave differently. The anger and threats of non-Whites are invariably regarded as a righteousness response to injustice. They are seen as good, hard-working people seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Rather than condemning non-Whites the media actively calls on politicians to serve them. And the politicians fall over themselves to respond.

Meanwhile we law-abiding, tax-paying, White citizens can see that media and politicians regard us as lazy, greedy, and evil. Our concerns aren't treated as legitimate political interests but are instead derided and dismissed as "racism" motivated by "hate". They not only don't care about our lives or families, they don't think we should either.

"Silence gives consent" works both ways. The media and politicians don't condemn the violent threats that have shut down speeches by Minutemen, Tom Tancredo, or Ann Coulter. They didn't even notice the American Renaissance conference being suppressed by death threats, right there in Washington.

"Silence gives consent" applies just as well to the displacement, dispossession, and discrimination against the native White population. Active participation in our genocide is worse than silence.

The truth is that political power springs from violence. This is clear even in US history - from Lexington and Concord right through to the military offensives in Afghanistan. Politics are driven by those who are willing to commit and condone violence to get what they want. Those who shy away get dominated and crushed. Most of our White leaders are craven traitors. Our non-White enemies are liars and hypocrites. Our condemnation is best aimed at them, not at those of us who oppose them. That's the American way.

(Image source.)

Robert Jay Mathews was killed by US government agents 25 years ago yesterday. Here's why:

The stronger my love for my people grew, the deeper became my hatred for those who would destroy my race, my heritage, and darken the future of my children.

By the time my son had arrived, I realized that White America, indeed my entire race, was headed for oblivion unless White men rose and turned the tide. The more I came to love my son the more I realized that unless things changed radically, by the time he was my age, he would be a stranger in his own land, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan in a country populated mainly by Mexicans, mulattoes, blacks and Asians. His future was growing darker by the day.

I came to learn that this was not by accident, that there is a small, cohesive alien group within this nation working day and night to make this happen. I learned that these culture distorters have an iron grip on both major political parties, on Congress, on the media, on the publishing houses, and on most of the major Christian denominations in this nation, even though these aliens subscribe to a religion which is diametrically opposed to Christianity.

These are the same people who Ex-Senator William J. Fulbright and the late General Brown tried to warn us about. Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg tried vainly to warn us also. Had we been more vigilant, my son's future would not be so dark and dismal.

Thus I have no choice. I must stand up like a White man and do battle. A secret war has been developing for the last year between the regime in Washington and an ever growing number of White people who are determined to regain what our forefathers discovered, explored, conquered, settled, built and died for.

The FBI has been able to keep this war secret only because up until now we have been doing nothing more than growing and preparing. The government, however, seems determined to force the issue, so we have no choice left but to stand and fight back. Hail Victory!

In A Call to Arms - Part 1, recorded in 1991, William Pierce recounts his memories of Mathews in the introduction to a talk given by Mathews in 1981. Links to parts 1-13 are here at the bottom of the page.

In Moving Forward Prozium cites me favorably as one of the handful of people who write about White Nationalism in the blogosphere on a semi-regular basis. I'm nonplussed and will respond by expressing some recent thoughts.

Late last week I met Prozium and a few other pro-Whites I have until now known only online. I'm neither a leader nor a joiner, and have for a variety of other reasons so far been disinclined to engage openly. I'm having a change of heart lately and like Prozium I am becoming more interested in activity and collaboration offline.

Before anyone else bothers I'll point out myself that the focus of my writing here hasn't been on White nationalism per se, but mainly on jewish influence and the White/jew faultline, the purpose being to educate myself and my few visitors to various double standards and acts of jewish malfeasance. I'm growing tired of this, disgusted might be a better word, but it's something I felt a need to do. I had climbed similar learning curves on islam and immigration in the years before, and my more recent focus has been a logical continuation of that self-education. It has also been a response to various anti-anti-semites who have since my awakening come with nothing but disinformation and dementia (see Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin and White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism).

I am prepared now not only to join Prozium and state openly that my ultimate goal is a jew-free, White ethnostate in North America, but also to say that I've come to this position after deep consideration, having gathered substantial information and arguments in support. I understand that racialism and separatism are among the most frowned upon concepts in today's public discourse, never mind criticizing jews. What I can also see clearly however is that the same rotten thoroughly judaized regime that makes this true also advances and celebrates anti-Whitism and the slow genocide of my kind, which has only accelerated as we've become more deracinated and obsequious. Now that the regime's nature is obvious to me I cannot do anything but oppose it and share what I've learned with others.

What Whites need to survive is at least one place where we are not guilt-tripped, harrassed, mugged, raped, murdered and ultimately bred out of existence by shitheads who hate us. We have never had a problem dealing with our own shitheads. It's with the non-White shitheads, and only in the last few generations, that we get all tangled up. What I know now is that it started with jewish emancipation. What Whites need to thrive is a culture composed and controlled by our own kind, exhibiting a confident and positive self-image. This has been less and less the case as jewish ownership and influence in our media, art, and entertainment has increased.

Whether we remove ourselves, or those who hate us, or some combination of both is not as important to me as the recognition that the status quo cannot endure. If we do nothing we will surely disappear, so why not resist? It is already open season on Whites, despite our disproportionate representation in the police and military. As we lose control of these institutions and our political and financial influence wanes we will see the hostility and violence against us increase dramatically.

A cold Winter comes. We must make preparations in order to see Spring.

A good (and true) joke, according to Lawrence Auster:

From a discussion at the blog Half Sigma, where the topic is the irrationality of the Jew-hating and Israel-hating white nationalists. A commenter says:

As I said on the von Brunn thread, the bigger mystery is why they hate the Federal Reserve.

The Fed has nothing directly or indirectly to do with race or genetics. It is a purely economic issue. But von Brunn and the Stormfronters want a gold standard almost as badly as a second Holocaust.

Auster apparently didn't find the pseudonym of the commenter or the rest of his comment funny. Neither did I, but here it is:

Yes, most Fed board members - including Bernanke and Greenspan - are Jewish; but the Stormfronters think the Jews already control ***Everything***.

If the Jews already control Western civilization from top to bottom then why should the Fed be such a focus of their hatred?

Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | June 12, 2009 at 02:41 PM

The Undiscovered Jew's "joke" was made in response to a brief post made by Half Sigma titled Why are white nationalists anti-Israel?:

More accurately they should be called white gentile nationalists, because they don’t want white people who are Jewish in their movement. They would love for all the Jews to leave the United States, but where would the Jews go if not to Israel?

Conversely, if Israel is taken over by Muslims, there would be millions of Jewish refugees, and the bulk of them would probably wind up in the United States. Thus white nationalists seem to be actively working against their goals by being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.

The question was merely a rhetorical one, because the answer is that the white gentile nationalists hate the Jews so much that they just want to enjoy seeing Israel overrun by Muslims.

All of this - from Half Sigma's indignant confusion, to Undiscovered Jew's sack dance over a strawman, to Auster's shallow smirking - comes across as puerile, not funny. I don't presume to speak for James von Brunn or "the Stormfronters" or anyone else who "hates" the Federal Reserve, but it's easy to demonstrate how self-servingly clueless these three jews are.

Let's work backwards toward the source, in the order I've just introduced Larry and his cousins Moe and Curly.

- - -

Auster frequently provides grist for my mill. Some say too much. His part in this post is small. See Fruitloopable Presumption for more about him.

In the past few months Auster has spent a great deal of effort attacking and denouncing Darwinism. I'm not going to bother picking apart his "logic", he's cleary doing it for the same reason he does anything else. He thinks Darwinism is bad for jews, though it isn't really Darwinism per se that he dislikes, it's the use of evolution and genetics in understanding the world and how jews stand in it that Auster can't stand. This he labels "jew-hate", and there's nothing he hates more than "jew-haters". Except maybe "israel-haters".

Auster's passionate hatred for hate runs so deep that it wraps around and he actually gets a chuckle from the jokes one jewish Darwinist tells another about those jew-hating israel-haters, AKA "the Stormfronters". This fills him with such mirth that he left the name and punchline of The Undiscovered Jew undiscovered.

The Undiscovered Jew's name actually is a bit of a joke - an ironic reference to the jewish tendency to keep their jewish identity and interests from being discovered, except when they find it more convenient to proclaim the significance of their jewishness, which very often coincides with them ridiculing any non-jew who thinks jewishness has significance or is worth discovering.

The contradiction U-Jew sees in "Stormfronter" logic reflects his own witlessness.

The Fed has nothing directly or indirectly to do with race or genetics.

He finds this misunderstanding of "Stormfronter" understanding so critical that he reiterates it:

It is a purely economic issue.

Except it isn't.

But von Brunn and the Stormfronters want a gold standard almost as badly as a second Holocaust.

Non sequitur. It is curious however that so many of those who think any negative proclamation about "the jews" is ipso facto "irrational" "hate", but have no problem making truly irrational statements (as Half Sigma and U-Jew do) about the mythically monolithicness of "the Stormfronters", which for Half Sigma and his commenters is nothing but a euphemism for pro-Whites they deliberately misconstrue instead as "jew-haters" (which they do because they are pro-jew).

Yes, most Fed board members - including Bernanke and Greenspan - are Jewish; but the Stormfronters think the Jews already control ***Everything***.

So here we see that right after denying it U-Jew actually does see "the Stormfronter" point; but what he's really trying to do is distort it. Better than anyone else jews are acutely aware that they don't control everything. Many wish they did. The ones most obsessed with control are exactly the ones who are so quick to tick off the various vexing ways jews don't "control ***Everything***". Jewish media influence? "Ted Turner isn't jewish!"

If the Jews already control Western civilization from top to bottom then why should the Fed be such a focus of their hatred?

Here's a better question. One that isn't based on a false premise. If "the Stormfronters" are powerless why should they be such a focus of hatred from "anti-liberal" "race-realists" like Auster and Half Sigma? Don't they have bigger fish to fry?

If U-Jew is in the slightest bit curious what causes anybody to "hate" the Federal Reserve he could begin by watching The Money Masters. This 215 minute documentary-style video reviews financial history, describing in deracinated jew-blind layman's terms how the modern Western banking system evolved over the last several hundred years, largely through war and intrigue. The distinct impression it leaves is that the banking system is essentially fraudulent, based on the creation of wealth by trickery (AKA fractional reserve banking) and the subversion and subordination of citizens and their governments to plutocrats and their agents (eg. the "international bankers" who own and operate the Fed). All you have to do is add even a dim "race realist" recognition of disproportionate jewish involvement in finance such as U-Jew exhibits and you have the solution to U-Jew's own very disingenous, very jewish reasoning.

Now on to Half Sigma and his rhetorical question: Why are white nationalists anti-Israel?

More accurately they should be called white gentile nationalists, because they don’t want white people who are Jewish in their movement. They would love for all the Jews to leave the United States, but where would the Jews go if not to Israel?

Once again it's not possible to ignore the simplistic and unjustified implication that all White nationalists (i.e. Whites who would prefer to live in a White country that defends and pursues White interests) oppose jewish nationalism. The fact is that jewish nationalists have a country they can go to, where jewish interests are openly pursued and non-jews are second class citizens. This is only one of the many inconsistencies that irritate White nationalists. Another fact is that many jews, whether they support jewish nationalism or not, are rabid opponents of Whites pursuing their own interests, never mind nationalism. Any White who begins to experience even the dimmest racial consciousness can't ignore that jews are their most rabid opponents. Some jews who like the societies Whites build and desperately wish to be seen as "white" (as Half Sigma and Auster do) react to the undeniable reality of jewish aggression against Whites by desperately spinning excuses and rationalizations, in the end absurdly laying all the blame on "the Stormfronters" or "the jew-haters".

There are myriad organizations dedicated to the defense and pursuit of jewish interests, many of them excluding non-jews, even if only implicitly. If only in response then it is reasonable that Whites, nationalist or otherwise, organize for our own interests and exclude jews. We have and would be more successful at it were it not for the constant, venomous attacks on us by jewish organizations.

Conversely, if Israel is taken over by Muslims, there would be millions of Jewish refugees, and the bulk of them would probably wind up in the United States. Thus white nationalists seem to be actively working against their goals by being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.

Yes, no doubt if israel collapses it will all be blamed on "the anti-semites". And yes, jews are already preparing to evacuate to the US. See for example The Kvetcher's Jewish Immigration Policy as Worst Case Scenario Appears Ever More Likely, especially the outrageously arrogant comments of blode0322, who in contrast to Half Sigma's suggested terminology I'd describe as a white non-Gentile nationalist.

Half Sigma concludes:

The question was merely a rhetorical one, because the answer is that the white gentile nationalists hate the Jews so much that they just want to enjoy seeing Israel overrun by Muslims.

Race-realist Half Sigma's question was rhetorical, and the answer oddly based on the same "hate" rationale that race-denying "liberals" use, because he doesn't want to face the real answer, which is that jews aren't White. Unfortunately for Sigma the real answer explains not only the general antipathy self-conscious Whites have for the jewish state of israel, but also for the obvious fear and loathing jews express toward anything White - whether it's spelling White with a capital W, White nationalism, or even a Whites-only political party that doesn't exclude them.

Half Sigma, recognizing this threat to his convenient and comfortable hatred of "jew-hate", followed up later the same day with a lame assertion. In Jews are white he writes:

Judaism is a religion and not a race. Jews can be of any race, even black. If you think that Spaniards are white, then you would also conclude that Sephardic Jews from Spain are white.

Only white nationalists and Stormfront types insist that Ashkenazi Jews aren’t white, and that’s because they hate Jews but love whites, so they need some sort of rationalization for the inconsistency.

A year ago, Steve Sailer posted a 3-D chart showing how Ashkenazi Jews cluster genetically when compared to other ethnicities, and it’s clear from the chart that Jews are similar to Russians and Western Europeans, and quite dissimilar from Middle Eastern ethnicities such as Druze, Samaritans, and Yemenites.

You shouldn’t even need the chart to figure out that Jews are white, because common sense should inform you that you can’t tell the difference between Jews and other Europeans. It’s true that some Jews have a Jewish look about them, but Italians have an Italian look about them, Irish have an Irish look about them, and Poles have a Polish look about them, but those European ethnicities are rarely accused of not being white. No one is better at identifying other Jews than Jews themselves, and Jews usually can’t tell whether or not someone looks Jewish. I remember an organization in the Phoenix area which threw parties for Jewish singles, and they would always ask at the door, “are you Jewish?” The reason they had to ask the question is because they can’t tell by looking. It’s hard to imagine a black organization asking at the door, “are you black?”

I don’t know of any Ashkenazi Jews who consider themselves anything other than white. There are many Jews who, when asked their ethnicity, say that they’re Jewish, but I don’t say that. I tell people I’m half Russian and half Polish. I would encourage more Jews to identify themselves that way.

Jewish political groups aren’t doing anything to defend against the anti-Semitic meme that Jews aren’t white because Jewish groups tend to be very liberal, and liberals think that defending against the accusation that one isn’t white would be admitting that you believe that there’s something wrong with not being white, and it would be racist to think there’s something wrong with not being white. But in my opinion, it’s not racist to point out that some white nationalists are saying stuff about Jews which isn’t true.

Coming from a popular, supposedly intelligent, "race-realist" blogger this confused babble would be perplexing, except that it makes perfect sense and is perfectly consistent once we realize that it's coming from a jew. Why should Whites not consider jewishness significant? Why should we look the other way while jewish apologists peddle such incoherent nonsense as a cover for jewish attacks on us? What Half Sigma is writing is in fact just another more insidious form of attack. "You can't call yourself White! You should call yourself "white gentile", because I as a jew consider myself "white" and I get to order you around because you hate jews!"

Immediately Half Sigma's own pro-jewish commenters tried to point out his foolishness. Unlike Auster, Half Sigma runs a somewhat open forum, but like Auster he shows the same discomfort with criticism, meticulously inserting his rebuttals right into the first few dissenting commenters comments. Later on The Kvetcher responded with Overreaching on Jewish Whiteness:

Half Sigma starts out with a half-truth, noting, “Judaism is a religion and not a race. Jews can be of any race…” This is, in and of itself, true, of course. Judaism is not based or limited to any race. In fact, there is no explicit term for race in the Torah.

But Jews are, to a large degree, a specific people sharing similar genetic code. The reference to The Jews in our liturgy is filled with the mention of “am Yisroel,” or, “the nation of Israel.” Who comprises “the nation” of Israel? The twelve tribes. The convert is a “stranger.” Not the illegal immigrant — the convert.

Kvetcher points out a graph that better illustrates jewish genetic distinctiveness at Gene Expression: SNPs don't lie. Another graph is attached to Criticizing Auster. It indicates ashenazi jews are genetically more distinct from Poles than Poles are from Italians or Greeks. I'm a Darwinist in the sense that I think the sociopolitcal distinctions I've already made between jews and Whites spring largely from personality differences which spring largely from genetics.

- - -

So what explains jewish "race realist" Half Sigma's behavior? How can he be so acutely aware of his jewish heritage and yet unaware of its significance? What drives him to caricaturize and hate and wish to exclude "the Stormfronters" in the same way he mistakenly assumes "all" of "them" wish to do to jews? Why does he so desparately argue jews are "white", while he, like so many other jews, shows such a deep disrespect and disdain for Whites who disagree?

I think the cause is his jewishness. And I think this kind of thing isn't said more openly and more frequently because the West, or the White Gentile West to put it in terms Half Sigma might better understand, has become thoroughly judaized. After generations of effort by jewish-led intellectual and political movements, and more recently flipping into overdrive with the rise of mass media, and the aid of jewish influence in that media, any criticism of jews, even when they say the most hypocritical and self-serving things, is considered an egregious crime. To even say "you're only saying this crap because you're jewish" is considered "irrational" "jew-hate".

For this reason many jews have become accustomed to facing little or no opposition, which leads them to overreach, becoming more and more overbearing and openly hostile and resentful of Whites, revealing in their continuous and brazen arrogance and hypocrisy that they are not motivated by any principle or reason higher than "what's good for jews?"

- - -

I'll conclude with a few miscellaneous related items.

In Just Another Day (Part 2) Prozium points to Half Sigma's posts as just a small part of another typical day of jewish attacks on Whites. He also links to Ben Cohen at the Huffington Post who, big surprise, dictates MSNBC, Pull the Plug on Pat Buchanan. What is truly amazing is his reason why. It hinges on exactly the kind of pernicious race-based libels against Whites that jews are always so quick to see and denounce in any criticism of themselves:

When you consider the 6 million people the Germans managed to wipe out, there's not much the Jews couldn't take from Germany to make things right.

White Europeans committed perhaps the biggest genocide in history when they came to the Americas. The native population was literally wiped off the land to make way for white settlers, and for those who managed to survive, a few crumbs were passed off to them decades later for their troubles.

White people transported millions of African slaves to the United States, subjected them to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation. Blacks have only been treated as equal citizens in America since the 1960's, and the notion that centuries of enslavement, degradation and economic disenfranchisement could be reversed in a few decades is just laughable.

Every minority in America has suffered at the hands of white people. It is a country founded by white people, built by white people and controlled by white people. To pretend otherwise is akin to holocaust denial. It is a fact.

Here's a rhetorical question for Half Sigma. Does Ben Cohen consider himself "white"? As I noted in Not the Last Brainwashing it certainly isn't uncommon for jews to peddle "blood libels" against Whites in the mainstream media. They're not even aiming at "the Stormfronters". They hate ordinary unsuspecting just-acting-natural White people.

Attacks like this on Whites by "liberal" jews are commonplace. What causes me to believe the source is more jewish than "liberal" is that even "anti-liberal" jews like Lawrence Auster, pro-West half-jews like Takuan Seiyo, pro-"white" philo-semites like Ian Jobling, and half honest jewish-but-I-wanna-be-white race-realists like Half Sigma won't face a very simple fact:

The government and the mainstream media are staunchly anti-White, not anti-jewish. In fact an ever growing body of laws explicitly puts jews on a pedestal, whether they attend a synagogue or not. Laws and censorship curtailing "hate speech" are perpetrated and rationalized largely by jews whose first and foremost concern is to protect jews from criticism.

What these "race realist" faux-White dissemblers listed above have in common is their holier-than-thou insistence that they have every right to generalize about and criticize muslims, blacks, "the Stormfronters", or anybody else they wish, but consider it unacceptable to treat jews in the same way. Rather than openly proclaiming their pro-jewish sentiments, acknowledging and defending their double standards, and/or moving to israel to be with the people they love so much, they instead spend a great deal of effort doing exactly what "liberals" do, pretending to be "white" while directing hate toward anyone who acts White.