Tag Archives: literature

Some Thoughts on Irmin Vinson

I bought a new book last weekend. While I have not yet finished it, what I have read so far is absolutely wonderful – a clear, sensible examination of topics that many White advocates consider difficult or imprudent to discuss.

The book is Irmin Vinson’s Some Thoughts on Hitler & Other Essays. The promotional blurb reads:

Why are we subjected to more anti-Hitler propaganda today than during World War II?

Why are white nations blanketed with Holocaust memorials, even countries where the Holocaust did not take place?

Why do most people know how many Jews died during World War II but have no idea how many non-Jews died?

Irmin Vinson’s Some Thoughts on Hitler and Other Essays is a book about propaganda. Vinson explains how the organized Jewish community uses the memory of Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust as weapons to stigmatize the patriotism and ethnic pride not just of Germans, but of all whites, including those who fought against Hitler.

Vinson explains how this spurious white guilt and self-hatred has been used to break down white resistance to multiculturalism, miscegenation, affirmative action, and the invasion and colonization of white homelands by non-white immigrants—trends which, if not reversed, will lead to white extinction.

In these clear, rational, and highly readable essays, Irmin Vinson exposes and demolishes this insidious propaganda, clearing the way for the reemergence of white pride and patriotism. Some Thoughts on Hitler will change more than your view of the past; it will also change your understanding of the present—and of our destiny

See also Kevin MacDonald’s Foreword.

Vinson’s long essay titled Holocaust Commemoration forms the core of the book. I do not recall reading this essay previously, but passages like this one made me wonder if I must have:

The public discourse of the Jewish Holocaust is incoherent: it speaks in the universalist language of tolerance and inclusion, while justifying Jewish particularism in Israel; it claims to find in stories of Jewish wartime suffering distinctively Jewish humanitarian lessons, applicable to everyone everywhere, while borrowing them from the historical religion of the West; it teaches human brotherhood, while elevating the suffering of Jews far above all other suffering; it commemorates Jewish powerlessness, while demonstrating Jewish power. But beneath all its deceptions and contradictions lies the message of broad Western responsibility for German mistreatment of Jews, a special culpability which Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, a self-styled Holocaust theologian, has called “the measureless Christian guilt toward the Jewish people.” [6]

Institutionalized Holocaust commemoration in the United States presupposes that White Americans are notably deficient in the various moral qualities that Holocaust remembering purportedly inculcates, whereas Jews, owing to their group experience of nazi persecution, are the appropriate teachers of necessary lessons in racial tolerance. Those peculiar meanings did not, needless to say, arise unaided from stories of German atrocities against European Jewry. The truth of our collective guilt required an aggressive reinterpretation of the Second World War, an assault on the moral legitimacy of the Western nations that fought and won it. Through a remarkable transformation, the Allied victors have become co-agents in the crimes and alleged crimes of the regime they defeated, and the war itself has been reimagined as a Judeocentric moral test, which all of us conspicuously failed. Our measureless guilt, together with the entire edifice of Holocaust commemoration erected upon it, is a doctrine of moral equivalence projected back into the past in order to shape the present.

Vinson fleshes out and hammers home the points I only tersely outlined in A White Guide to the Jewish Narrative. Beside jewish morality and the holocaust narrative, touched on above, Vinson identifies an early example of the generalization of the jewish narrative to “minorities” and the racial aggression behind it:

An Early Holocaust Lesson

In 1944, as the war in Europe was drawing to a close, Jewish playwright Arthur Miller, then in his late twenties, sat down to write Focus, his first and only novel. [7] It would be a critical moral fable about his fellow Americans, for Miller did not share the heroic self-image and traditional patriotism that characterized most other Americans during the war years. Focus, published in 1945, would be an imaginative elaboration of a very simple thesis: being a Jew in Roosevelt’s America was like being a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. In their irrational hatred of the Jewish Other, White Americans, the same White Americans who were then fighting fascism in Europe and the Far East, were no different from nazis.

Lawrence Newman, the novel’s WASP protagonist, is a corporate personnel manager whose quiet bourgeois world is permanently disrupted after he begins to wear eyeglasses, which strangely make him look Jewish, a dangerous liability in the America of Miller’s fertile imagination. Without glasses Newman is a gray-flanneled Episcopalian, a normal White American, despite his ethnically ambiguous surname; with glasses he is perceived and treated as a despised Jew, persecuted and even attacked by other normal White Americans, all of whom are racist and anti-Semitic, as Newman had been before he gained his factitious Jewishness. The novel’s organizing narrative conceit, that eyeglasses can turn an anti-Semitic Gentile into a Jew, conveys an obvious Judeocentric meaning: Lawrence Newman, in his culpable blindness to the intolerance that surrounds him, must first be seen as a Jew in order to see clearly. Thus in his new role as a reluctant Jew, now seeing and experiencing the world through the Jewish lenses conferred by his racial marginalization, Newman gradually discovers that his homogenous New York neighborhood, which had once seemed a benign social environment of communal amity, is in reality, beneath its placid surface, a seething caldron of xenophobia and hate, at least for anyone with the misfortune to be different, or in his case merely to appear different. “Behind these snug, flat-roofed houses,” Newman now perceives, “a sharp-tipped and murderous monster was nightly being formed, and its eyes were upon him.”

The novel’s historical context is central to its subject. In Focus the European war, depicted in our propaganda as a titanic struggle of good against evil, seems little more than a distant contest between two rival groups of pogromists, each nurturing its own “murderous monster” of racial hatred. In Europe German nazis conduct mass hangings of Jews, while at home angry anti-Semites, organized into the Christian Front, part of a large network of patriotic organizations spread across the country, beat Jews and rape Puerto Ricans as they await the return of the American military, who will then assume the lethal role of storm troops in driving Jews from America, beginning first in New York, the center of Jew-hatred. White America’s cleansing war against Jewry will begin, as an activist neighbor informs Newman, “when the boys come home,” since American combatants in the European war are at one with their German enemies in their implacable anti-Semitism.

In the political environment we now all inhabit, nothing in Focus is startling, nothing would be out of place in a sensitivity workshop or an anti-racialist educational exercise. The novel’s vision of a virulently racist America would have appeared radical in 1945; now it is commonplace, especially for young Whites immersed in a rigorous program of multicultural miseducation. Miller, alarmed by the failure of non-Jews to comprehend “the threatening existence of Nazism,” and unimpressed by the fact that many men of his age cohort were then dying in Europe fighting Germans, took it upon himself to teach an early version of what would eventually become the most insidious of the Jewish Holocaust’s numerous lessons, namely that pathological (“nazi”) hatreds lurk behind the West’s superficially civilized exterior. Whereas American wartime propaganda had, naturally enough, presented NS Germany as the moral antonym of the United States in particular and of the democratic West in general, Miller substituted a much different contrastive structure, placing innocent Jews on one side and lethally malevolent Whites on the other, with racial minorities like Blacks and Puerto Ricans in ancillary roles as occasional victims of White intolerance. This structure, which Miller may have been the first to discover, conflated Germans and their enemies in order to nazify White Gentiles as a whole. Focus was a thorough defamation of Euro-America for its endemic anti-Semitism and racial hatred, the purpose of which was to efface any significant moral distinction between ourselves and the propaganda image of the Nazi. Miller’s nazification required the Nazi as the acknowledged representation of evil, but his concrete targets were White Americans, who had not yet seen their own visible racial pathologies.

From this Vinson boldly infers:

An imaginative Jew writing before the liberation of the German concentration camps could arrive at nazifying Holocaust propaganda without the Holocaust, which suggests that the Holocaust does not represent events during the Second World War but rather reveals Jewish attitudes toward their benefactors. The Holocaust, as an idea, was latent Jewish racial aggression awaiting both a symbol and an opportunity to express itself.

Yes indeed. Likewise for the Six Million Holocausts phenomena.

Roth and Weiss on What’s Best for The Jews

Two years ago I wrote about jewish influence on Christmas music. Sometime later I ran across a passage from Philip Roth’s Operation Shylock praising Irving Berlin for de-Christing Christmas (and Easter). What I didn’t realize until today was that Roth’s book frames jewish hostility toward Christmas in a much broader context of jewish hostility toward Christianity, Christians, and Whites in general.

Roth, like Berlin, is not some marginal, inconsequential jew. Roth is considered “one of the most honored authors of his generation”:

His fiction, set frequently in Newark, New Jersey, is known for its intensely autobiographical character, for philosophically and formally blurring the distinction between reality and fiction, for its “supple, ingenious style,” and for its provocative explorations of Jewish and American identity.

Actually, it’s more accurate to describe Roth’s work and it’s fans as reflecting an all-consuming obsession with jewish identity. Roth is concerned about what it means to be a jew and how that contrasts with being Christian, American, or European. In Operation Shylock Roth weighs the differences between zionism and diasporism, two complementary jewish identities.

The portion excerpted here was not easy to find. In the end I transcribed it from Moshe Waldoks’ The Best American Humor 1994. Though Roth’s book is in Google Books, and precise searches will display snippets, I have not been able to find a link to freely viewable content.

Without further ado, here is Philip Roth, speaking through a character he named Philip Roth:

I heard myself next praising the greatest Diasporist of all, the father of the new Diasporist movement, Irving Berlin. “People ask where I got the idea. Well, I got it listening to the radio. The radio was playing ‘Easter Parade’ and I thought, But this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin ‘Easter Parade’ and ‘White Christmas.’ The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ—the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity—and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. Gone is the gore and the murder of Christ—down with the crucifix and up with the bonnet! He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! Nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit ‘em. They love it. Everybody loves it. The Jews especially. Jews loathe Jesus. People always tell me Jesus is Jewish. I never believe them. It’s like when people used to tell me Cary Grant was Jewish. Bullshit. Jews don’t want to hear about Jesus. And can you blame them? So—Bing Crosby replaces Jesus as the beloved Son of God, and the Jews, the Jews, go around whistling about Easter! And is that so disgraceful a means of defusing the enmity of centuries? Is anyone really dishonored by this? If schlockified Christianity is Christianity cleansed of Jew hatred, then three cheers for schlock. If supplanting Jesus Christ with snow can enable my people to cozy up to Christmas, then let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. Do you see my point?” I took more pride, I told them, in “Easter Parade” then in the victory of the Six Day War, found more security in “White Christmas” than in the Israeli nuclear reactor. I told them that if the Israelis ever reached a point where they believed their survival depended not merely on breaking hands but on dropping a nuclear bomb, that would be the end of Judaism, even if the state of Israel should survive. “Jews as Jews will simply disappear. A generation after Jews use nuclear weapons to save themselves from their enemies, there will no longer be people to identify themselves as Jews. The Israelis will have saved their state by destroying their people. They will never survive morally after that; and if they don’t, why survive as Jews at all? They barely have the wherewithal to survive morally now. To put all these Jews in this tiny place, surrounded on all sides by tremendous hostility—how can you survive morally? Better to be marginal neurotics, anxious assimilationists, and everything else that the Zionists despise, better to lose the state than to lose your moral being by unleashing a nuclear war. Better Irving Berlin than the Wailing Wall. Better Irving Berlin than Holy Jerusalem! What does owning Jerusalem, of all places, have to do with being Jews in 1988? Jerusalem is by now the worst thing that could possibly have happened to us. Last year in Jerusalem! Next year in Warsaw! Next year in Bucharest! Next year in Vilna and Cracow! Look, I know people call Diasporism a revolutionary idea, but it’s not a revolution that I’m proposing, it’s a retroversion, a turning back, the very thing Zionism itself once was. You go back to the crossing point and cross back the other way. Zionism went back too far, that’s what went wrong with Zionism. Zionism went back to the crossing point of the dispersion—Diasporism goes back to the crossing point of Zionism.”

Roth’s argument isn’t complicated. First, he takes as a given that jews are a group, his group, distinct from everyone else. Second, he’s advocating in favor of that group’s best interests, regardless of what it means for anyone else. Roth subtitled his book A Confession. It is a jewish confession though, which means it’s more of an arrogant celebration of jewish victimology and supremacy than an expression of humility or contrition. Roth revels in his enmity toward “the goyim” even as he projects his hate into their minds. That the Other are so clueless, even about their supposed hatred for jews, serves as just another excuse for jews to hate them.

Talking directly to his own people, Roth first reminds them how easily and completely the goyim can and have been manipulated by jews. Then he shames them with the notion that jewish nationalism isn’t good enough for the jews. Why constrain yourself to live in one small country when you can thrive everywhere by manipulating the goyim? Then, finally, as a sort of trump card, Roth invokes morality. As with confession, morality means something different to jews than Christians. Christian morality is universalist – it refers to principles that apply equally to everyone, even their enemies. Jewish morality is particularist – “Is it good for the jews?” Working with this definition of morality Roth doesn’t see anything wrong with jews manipulating the goyim to further jewish interests. If it’s good for the jews then it’s good. When Roth describes zionist jews nuking their enemies as immoral, it’s not because of the harm it might cause those enemies. It’s because he thinks it would cause “the end of Judaism”, which to him means “there will no longer be people to identify themselves as Jews”.

Scrolling back to the top of the page in the book where the quote above begins we find Roth elaborating on who the enemy is, and what he wants from them:

… call on Europe to purge itself of a thousand years of anti-Semitism and to make room in its midst for a vital Jewish presence to multiply and flourish there and, in anticipation of the third millenium of Christianity, to declare by proclamation in all its parliaments the right of the Jewish uprooted to resettle in their European homeland and to live as Jews there, free, secure, and welcome. But I have my doubts.

This is the jewish version of history, together with the jewish solution to their European problem. Roth makes it plain enough, and not nicely at all, that Europeans must be subordinated to jews so that jews can multiply and flourish. Roth wants Europeans (by which he means Whites everywhere) to admit collective guilt and abandon any collective identity or interests of our own. Meanwhile jews enjoy the opposite.

Roth is sometimes absurdly described as a “self-hating jew” because he clearly favors diasporism over zionism, rather than both. This “self-hating jew” bit also serves as a kind of cover – shoo away now goyim, this is private jew business being discussed here. The fact is that he’s simply one particularly prominent example of the typical White-blaming, White-hating what’s-good-for-the-jews jew. The less the goyim know about that the better for the jews.

The belief that zionism is somehow bad for the jews is not uncommon on the “liberal” side of the political spectrum – which is to say amongst the majority of jews outside Israel. Philip Weiss expressed a similar belief earlier this month in Israel isn’t good for the Jews. Weiss, aiming non-fiction at a (slightly) more mixed audience than Roth, writes:

A feeling has taken root deep in the American Jewish community that Israel is hurting us, hurting our standing in the world and our future. The restrictions on democracy, the curbs on women, the intransigence vis-a-vis the Palestinians when Obama has demanded movement, the indifference to the Arab Spring– Israel is a society we no longer recognize as Jewish like we’re Jewish, and worst of all, its militarism is exposing American Jews to the accusation that we are dually loyal. And we don’t like that: We’re Americans.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was clearly the oafish ad campaign that targeted Christmas and intermarriage– the ad campaign that Netanyahu cancelled. Even rightwing Israel lobbyists were stunned by how clueless the ad campaign was. But it was an expression of genuine Israeli attitudes. And that is what’s so scary: American Jews are waking up to the fact that Israeli society is nothing like ours. Hillary Clinton could only launch her criticism of religious restrictions on women in Israel because she knows that American Jews feel this way. Ambassador Howard Gutman was speaking for many sensible American Jews when he said that Israeli policies are hurting Jews by fostering anti-Semitism.

We are integrators. We live in America because we want to be Jews in a diverse society. That is the spirit of American Jewish life by and large. And now these Zionists–separatists whom we never completely trusted when we were arguing with them in Eastern Europe–are quietly understood to have hijacked Jewishness and taken it to a dark ugly place.

In conclusion Weiss writes:

Because more and more of us who care about Jewish life, as an integral part of western society, need to separate ourselves from an ethos of separation.

It’s refreshing to hear a jew admit that powerful non-jews like Hillary Clinton are actually beholden to jewish will – able to do what they do only so long as jews approve. Howard Gutman is also only nominally a representative of American interests. What Gutman said was delivered at a conference of organized jewry that deserves a detailed examination and critique of its own. Suffice it here to say that Gutman drew a distinction between Whites and muslims vis-a-vis jews. Whites, he said, simply hate others, like jews, largely for the sake of hating, whereas muslims at least hate jews for somewhat more sensible reasons, namely jews in Israel acting like Whites. This was controversial to jews and non-jews seeking to serve them. They complained Gutman wasn’t being fair to the jews.

Weiss, like Gutman, describes concerns that are clearly pinned to what he thinks best serves the interests of jews, or at least jews who live in the US. Not Americans. Not Palestinians. That’s what the word integration means to him. He’s so eager to defend his jews from exposure to (valid) accusations and yet so intellectually bankrupt that all he can do is spew blatant contradictions. We’re jews AND we’re Americans! That’s NOT dual loyalty! We’re integrators AND we continue separately as jews! We’re not at all like those DARK, UGLY separatists over there! Oh, and by the way, THEY’RE NOT JEWS!

The bottom line is that Weiss, like Roth, thinks jewish interests are best served within subservient Western societies. Whereas Roth sees the jews in diaspora as living among hostile aliens and writes more or less frankly about defusing Christians, Weiss is more interested in playing the anti-“racist” liberal, defusing separatists and nationalists. Like Roth, Weiss seems confident that jews can and will continue to thrive, at least in diaspora. The problem, as Roth sees it, is that zionism is immoral. Weiss claims the problem is that “oafish” “clueless” zionists are making a mockery of his (jewish) moralizing.

Weiss says he’s scared that jews are waking up and they’re upset that zionists have “hijacked Jewishness and taken it to a dark ugly place”. I couldn’t care less, but I think what scares jews more, zionist and diasporist alike, is the fear that Whites will see through their double-talk. That enough of us will wake up and be upset to realize that jews, as a group, are only worried about the interests of jews. That we’ll understand that they have always seen us as the Other, the enemy, regardless of how we regard them. That we’ll see how diaspora jews, through calculated, coordinated, collective effort, have hijacked Western societies and taken us to a dark ugly place, turning our homelands into amusement parks in the interests of “minorities”, first and foremost themselves. That we’ll put together the various pieces of truth, left and right, and see how militarism (and corporatism and globalism) really figures into all this. How the lives and vitality of our people have been squandered stomping around, on ourselves as well as others, to keep the world safe for jews, diasporists AND zionists, while they take turns demonizing and exploiting us.

[The Philip Weiss image comes from Gilad Atzmon’s Jews & Their Self Interest-An Interview with Philip Weiss.]

Celebrating Insane Alienated Anti-Heroes

Catcher In The Rye author shaped the popular culture he came to shun – Times Online:

For a man who spent half his life as a recluse, J. D. Salinger left an extraordinary, indelible imprint on popular culture. His influence transcended his literary fame and shaped future directions in film, television, music, and theatre as well as popularising the term “to screw up”.

Salinger’s classic is frequently cited as proof that culture cannot be held responsible for acts perpetrated by the people who consume it.

Really? That’s not at all what they say about The Turner Diaries or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

J. D. Salinger: Author of The Catcher in the Rye | Times Online Obituary:

J. D. Salinger shot to worldwide fame with his novel The Catcher in the Rye, which appeared in 1951. With its disenchanted adolescent anti-hero, perpetually at war with adulthood, especially as embodied in his own parents, it seemed to encapsulate the mood of an entire generation. Perhaps more remarkably it simultaneously exercised a considerable effect on that generation’s behaviour.

Its protagonist Holden Caulfield instantly became the symbol of teenage alienation in America and his influence spread rapidly across the Atlantic. Not merely, as is so often the case, for his own generation, but for those that followed, the character of Caulfield continued to stand for the seeming impossibility for the younger generation of communicating in any meaningful way not only with their parents but also with the friends and associates of those parents. When the Sixties opened, with teenage rebellion in Western society taking on a different hue and, under the influence of rock’n’roll, sexual emancipation and drugs, having apparently a different set of preoccupations, the gospel of Catcher in the Rye remained as potent as ever.

Jerome David Salinger was born in New York in 1919, the son of a kosher cheese salesman of Polish ancestry, and his wife, who was a convert to Judaism.

Here is an example why distrust of even partial jews is justified. Their racial confusion can express itself in highly destructive forms. Yet Salinger’s refusal to bask in the media’s adulation seems to confound and bemuse them, though they seem to know more than they let on about why. Perhaps what drove Salinger to become a recluse was shame and disgust at the negative impact of his novel, and perhaps that sprang from his non-jewish side.

Why did J D Salinger spend the last 60 years hiding in a shed writing love notes to teenage girls? | Mail Online:

Born in New York on January 1, 1919, J.D. (Jerome David) Salinger’s early life gave little hint of what he would become, although there were several factors that affected him deeply.

One was the shock of believing he was Jewish and then discovering that he was only half-Jewish – his mother was, in fact, a Catholic.

More scarring still, however, were his experiences in World War II, in which he saw numerous comrades killed around him.

He landed on Utah Beach on D-Day and fought all the way to Paris. There, he met Ernest Hemingway who encouraged his writing.

Still in Europe when the war ended, he was sent to Germany to interrogate Nazis.

There, he fell in love with a girl called Sylvie – later believed to be a former Nazi official – whom he married and, after eight months, divorced.

He later described her as ‘an evil woman who bewitched me’.

Salinger went back to his life of seclusion in the hidden cabin, around which he now owned 450 acres. Dressed in a blue boiler suit, he wrote every day, although not for publication – a possible treasure trove of up to ten novels are believed to lie in his locked safe.

I get the distinct impression these later writings would be hated by the same people who love Catcher. Ironically, in today’s anything-goes, sexually-liberated environment smears of a sexual nature are a typical treatment for heretics. “Nothing to see here! Don’t pay any attention to what this pervert has to say!” Tellingly, Salinger didn’t hole up in Manhattan, Palm Beach, or the Hollywood hills where he could have much more freely slaked his supposed tastes sheltered alongside other celebrated perverts.

How alienating it is to witness the media today looking back and celebrating the impact of Salinger’s novel, even as they ridicule the author and his own reaction. But then they celebrate everything destructive about the White/jewish “culture war”. Caulfield’s alienation makes sense to them, it’s laudable even, while the alienation engendered by themselves they paint as malevolent “ignorance” and “hate”.

It is for good reasons that Francis Parker Yockey described jews as Culture-distorters and the bearers of Culture-disease. In a culture free of jewish influence novels such as Catcher in the Rye would be disparaged, not celebrated.

how to be HAPPY, dammit

I was going through a box of books separating the wheat from the chaff when I came upon how to he HAPPY, dammit – a cynic’s guide to spiritual happiness. It was a gift and I never had any interest in reading it. Wincing once more at the garish cover I was about to toss it in the trash when on a whim instead I cracked it open, just to see what kind of wisdom about happiness I was about to forgo…

Life Lesson #15

You must unlearn.

To get what you want, you must be open not only to learning – but un-learning. You must sign up for un-lessons – where you un-learn learned fear, guilt, anger, jealousy, insecurity – and that’s just for starters.

Hmm. This is interesting. I know I’ve got a lifetime of guilt-tripping to un-learn. Eagerly I turned the page…

In other words, before you write your to-do list of what you want, you have to write your un-do list and to-don’t list. So you get a piece of paper and you write down the following six categories: money, love, sex, family, power, happiness. Next to each of these categories you write down your negative views – your fears, your guilts, your insecurities – that you must un-learn and un-feel.

Hmm. Well, those aren’t necessarily the categories or priorities I would pick, but let’s see where this is going…

For instance, you ask yourself what negative views you have about money. Like: Do you believe all rich people are superficial jerks – hence if you become rich you too might become a superficial jerk? Do you suffer from Keeping Down with the Joneses syndrome? Do you feel guilty about surpassing your friends – and/or parents – in wealth? If so, you must un-learn and un-feel these negative ideas and negative emotions…And you find that when you trade in these negative beliefs and emotions for positive ones, you start getting more in harmony with receiving money. You start seeing money everywhere.

Even in the word harmony, which suddenly now looks to you like harmoney.

Wait a minute…what kind of spiritualist wrote this materialist crap?

karen salmansohn