Tag Archives: white nationalism

This Fictitious Conflict

zionism_is_code_for_death_by_jewing

Left-posing jew Weiss writes, Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals):

For a long time, liberalism and Zionism have gotten along fine in America– just look at the Democratic Party and its love for Israel. But Charlottesville represents a crisis for liberal Zionists. When they condemn white nationalism in the U.S. and celebrate Jewish nationalism in Israel, the contradiction is obvious to all.

Just consider three prominent voices. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, the liberal Zionist group J Street, and blogger and Democratic Party thinker Josh Marshall.

Weiss cites three contemporary jew voices. Below I’ll cite a prominent opposing voice from the past.

The extent of the contradiction is worse than Weiss admits. The jews have an ethnostate, a state explicitly by for and of jews, whereas Whites have none. Not one. Even outside their explicit ethnostate the jews have laws specifically protecting themselves and their ethnostate from criticism. Jews claim that jews are White, that Whites have privilege and thus deserve to be oppressed, and that jews are oppressed by Whites and thus deserve their privilege. When Whites object even indirectly to any aspect of this jewing the jews swarm forth as a tribe and screech louder for even more special funding and protection from their ostensibly liberal host state.

So-called liberals and their liberal democratic states aren’t advertised as elevating one group above others. Quite the contrary. Yet they openly elevate the jews above all others, and especially above Whites. That’s the big contradiction. Zionists do not merely support a state for jews, they oppose any state for Whites. They regard Whites and jews as political opposites. That’s not a contradiction, it’s the parasite having its cake and eating its host too. Liberalism has always served the jews, providing the means by which any and all forms of jewing have been simultaneously advanced and defended.

Weiss continues:

Charlottesville makes this conversation urgent because the hypocrisy of the Democratic leadership hurts resistance to intolerance. You can’t be righteously anti-nationalist in the U.S. and evangelists for Jewish nationalism over there.

This is not just good liberal philosophy. It’s the best policy to fight anti-Semitism. Israel’s status as a human-rights abuser is now its global reputation; and Jews and Jewish organizations who blindly defend it are hurting the reputation of Jews.

It is behind the mask of liberalism that academia, corporations, and the mainstream media have issued a constant stream of increasingly hostile rhetoric psychopathologizing and demonizing Whites. Whites who collaborate are rewarded, even if only temporarily. Whites who resist, even if only rhetorically, are punished. And behind that same liberal mask the same powerful institutions actively denounce and suppress any criticism of jews.

The snarling illiberal reality of this anti-White/pro-jew regime is deliberately concealed behind its smiley weaponized buzzterms. The jews cry “tolerance”, “social justice”, “diversity”, and “equity” as they strike “nazis”, by which they mean Whites, then screech “anti-semitism” when they imagine some ricochet might possibly hit the jews.

Weiss is an apologist for his tribe posing as a critic. He postures as a liberal but frets specifically about the best interests of jews. He minimizes the harm jewing causes Whites. He’s concerned about the potential harm any backlash might cause jews.

Yair Rosenberg provides a more overt example of jew hostility toward Whites. Unlike Weiss, Rosenberg makes no pretense that he’s a liberal and offers no apologies for being obsessed with whatever is best for the jews, in or out of their jew state. Unlike Weiss, Rosenberg’s toxic anti-White opinions are shamelessly amplified by the corporate mainstream jewsmedia.

Rosenberg recently jewsplained Why There’s No Such Thing as White Zionism, directly addressing the anti-White/pro-jew cake-eating Weiss misidentifies. Rosenberg describes the problem as sneaky White nationalists stupidly trying to use liberal-zionist double-talk in the same way jews have. Smirking Rosenberg admits that the argument is senseless, because jews are oppressed and Whites are oppressors, i.e. because jews aren’t White.

Writing nearly a century ago Adolf Hitler discussed this same apparent contradiction and described how he came to understand that jews aren’t Germans, how this fictitious conflict between liberalism and zionism brought about this realization:

It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that I frequently ran up against the word ‘Jew’, partly in connection with political controversies. These references aroused a slight aversion in me, and I could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time I had no other feelings about the Jewish question.

There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism.

Then I came to Vienna.

Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. I watched the man stealthily and cautiously; but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?

As was always my habit with such experiences, I turned to books for help in removing my doubts. For the first time in my life I bought myself some anti-Semitic pamphlets for a few pence. But unfortunately they all began with the assumption that in principle the reader had at least a certain degree of information on the Jewish question or was even familiar with it. Moreover, the tone of most of these pamphlets was such that I became doubtful again, because the statements made were partly superficial and the proofs extraordinarily unscientific. For weeks, and indeed for months, I returned to my old way of thinking. The subject appeared so enormous and the accusations were so far-reaching that I was afraid of dealing with it unjustly and so I became again anxious and uncertain.

Naturally I could no longer doubt that here there was not a question of Germans who happened to be of a different religion but rather that there was question of an entirely different people. For as soon as I began to investigate the matter and observe the Jews, then Vienna appeared to me in a different light. Wherever I now went I saw Jews, and the more I saw of them the more strikingly and clearly they stood out as a different people from the other citizens. Especially the Inner City and the district northwards from the Danube Canal swarmed with a people who, even in outer appearance, bore no similarity to the Germans.

But any indecision which I may still have felt about that point was finally removed by the activities of a certain section of the Jews themselves. A great movement, called Zionism, arose among them. Its aim was to assert the national character of Judaism, and the movement was strongly represented in Vienna.

To outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jews championed this movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even repudiated it. But an investigation of the situation showed that those outward appearances were purposely misleading. These outward appearances emerged from a mist of theories which had been produced for reasons of expediency, if not for purposes of downright deception. For that part of Jewry which was styled Liberal did not disown the Zionists as if they were not members of their race but rather as brother Jews who publicly professed their faith in an unpractical way, so as to create a danger for Jewry itself.

Thus there was no real rift in their internal solidarity.

This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon disgusted me; for it was false through and through and in direct contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculate character on which that race had always prided itself.

Yes. Race and morality are key. Liberalism and zionism are simply code for death by jewing. They have mutated somewhat yet remain two faces of the same jew-first moral fraud. Both incite non-jews into fighting “racism” (Whites being White) and “anti-semitism” (anything that interferes with jews jewing). Both are championed by jews for the benefit of jews.

Hitler described accurately not only what was happening Germany in his time, but also forsaw the jew-dominated future we’re now living:

The Jewish domination in the State seems now so fully assured that not only can he now afford to call himself a Jew once again, but he even acknowledges freely and openly what his ideas are on racial and political questions. A section of the Jews avows itself quite openly as an alien people, but even here there is another falsehood. When the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the new national consciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another means to dupe the simple-minded Gentile. They have not the slightest intention of building up a Jewish State in Palestine so as to live in it. What they really are aiming at is to establish a central organization for their international swindling and cheating. As a sovereign State, this cannot be controlled by any of the other States. Therefore it can serve as a refuge for swindlers who have been found out and at the same time a high-school for the training of other swindlers.

As a sign of their growing presumption and sense of security, a certain section of them openly and impudently proclaim their Jewish nationality while another section hypocritically pretend that they are German, French or English as the case may be. Their blatant behaviour in their relations with other people shows how clearly they envisage their day of triumph in the near future.

The jew war on Whites is waged stealthily under the fiction that jews are White. It started and will end with the realization that they aren’t.

David Cole’s Muh Israel Argument

taki_muh_israel

Cole makes the perennial argument made by all “right”-posing jews: White nationalists should support “muh Israel” because it’s stupid and crazy to do otherwise.

The Alt-Right Gets a Wedgie at Taki’s Magazine:

During my Holocaust revisionist years in the 1990s, I encountered—no surprise here—lots and lots of “anti-Zionists.” After my forced reemergence as David Cole in 2013, I encountered even more. People in those circles continue to be amazed that I’m a supporter of Israel. I, on the other hand, continue to be amused at the level of anti-Israel sentiment that exists among self-described white nationalists and alt-rightists. I don’t quite get it. Israel is the closest thing to “the West” in that fetid sandlot known as the Middle East, and Israelis do exactly the types of things that white nationalists and alt-rightists want to do themselves (build walls to halt immigration, unapologetically racially profile in the name of safety, unashamedly fight to preserve an ethno-state, etc.). Yet rather than admiration from the “white right,” Israel gets hostility.

Those [Palestinian/pro-Palestinian] guys were like the Islamic version of the most exaggerated Hollywood stereotypes of hillbillies. “Muh lah-yand! Git off muh lah-yand! They dun took muh lah-yand!” Anytime I would try to have a rational discussion with one of those sad sacks, the discussion would always revert back to “the Jews took our land,” as though that magical statement had the power to kill any debate about tactics.

I really don’t understand why the whining of Palestinians catches the ear of anyone on the alt-right. I mean, the cornerstone of the Palestinian cause is that they were “colonized by Europeans” who “grabbed land via warfare.” And you, Mr. Alt-Righter, are sympathetic to that complaint? You think we should force Israel to “give that land back”? Funny, because when the Aztlán loons in the Southwest also claim to have been “colonized by Europeans” who “grabbed land via warfare,” and when they claim that Mexico deserves to “get that land back,” I don’t hear a lot of sympathy. In fact, all I hear from alt-rightists is “Hey, wars happen. The Indians fought; they lost. The Mexicans fought; they lost. We don’t owe them their land back.”

I just don’t accept the notion that gaining territory through war suddenly became a crime against humanity in 1945, right after—and what a coincidence this is!—the victorious Allies gained a shitload of territory from Germany following World War II. That 1945 “deadline” is arbitrary, and I don’t buy into it. As far as I’m concerned, Israel has a right to keep every damn square inch of land it won, and I don’t see that as a position that betrays any particular pro-Jewish or anti-Muslim bias.

In the 1980s, South African blacks, on advice from leftist whites (and, ironically, Jews) decided to take a very sound piece of advice: Stop committing terrorist acts against white South Africans. Don’t traumatize the folks who have to approve the dissolution of their own rule. Reserve your violence (like, say, those snazzy burning-tire “necklaces”) for the traitors in your own ranks. But to whites, be all Gandhi-like, be all “oh, heaven forbid, I’d never use violence in my quest for freedom,” and in no time at all, the name Mandela will become synonymous with Jesus. And it worked. Black South Africans got majority rule, and slowly but surely they’re getting the ethnic cleansing that their PR machine promised they didn’t seek.

Overreaching and overarching conspiracy theories about “Zionist influence” might be comforting to those who want to see Israel as the octopussian world center of all that is evil, but don’t expect Trump to share that worldview.

Like most jews, Cole has nothing but contempt for Whites. Essentially he’s whining because he imagines alt-right Whites might sympathize more with other goyim than jews, and he’s worried that might be bad for the jews.

Beside deliberately misrepresenting the relationship between jews and Whites this particular type of you-goyim-should-support-Israel argument also falsely equates jew-first “zionism” with nationalism. The fact is that the jews have always been parasites, living among and feeding upon Europeans before and after Europe divided into ostensibly sovereign nationalist states.

“Zionism” is a euphemism for the more blatant form jew parasitism has taken specifically after jew-firstism prevailed over White racialism in World War II. It is the idea that jews get a sovereign jew ethnostate and everyone else gets “democratic” states with governments, full of jews, dedicated to “combating racism and anti-semitism” and serving the alien jew ethnostate. And whatever else anyone pretends it means, “muh holocaust” serves as the primary rationale for this grotesque reality.

Jews don’t feel guilty about any of this. On the contrary, even before White resentment can coalesce jews screech as one that the real harm is being done to them. Many jews regurgitate some form of “singling-out the jews” counter-accusation, projecting their own jew-centric mindset, trying to guilt-trip deracinated “liberal” Whites for caring. Cole is aiming at more race- and jew-conscious Whites. Rather than deny the impact of jewing he attempts to obscure and minimize it. He sneers “you’re just jealous”, as if it were more desirable to ape jew parasitism than end it.

Once you properly perceive the jews for what they actually are this type of disingenuous argument not only falls flat, it comes across as a particularly insidious form of hostility. The answer is simple. Jews aren’t White, they’re anti-White. White nationalism and jew parasitism aren’t alike, they’re antithetical. There is no moral or logical obligation to sympathize with an enemy, and jews posing as allies, advising Whites how to better serve jews, are the worse kind of enemy.

Another Deluded Condemnation of Violence

running

Analyzing the Effectiveness of Politically Motivated Mass Murder in the US, by Patrick Le Brun at Counter-Currents, is a broad condemnation of White violence disguised as pro-White analysis. Le Brun makes his foregone conclusion plain from the start:

I see no use for violence in our movement. I am not a pacifist, nor do I believe that the current ruling class does not deserve it. But a brief comparison of the use of violence for political purposes throughout the last 100 years should make it clear why this is not the right choice for us, and such acts and their perpetrators should be expressly condemned. Since potential mass killers are probably not swayed by moral considerations, my argument against such violence is purely pragmatic.

Unlike many other pro-Whites who babble about “moral considerations” without giving much consideration to the meaning of such terms, Le Brun boldly announces that he will simply not even consider White political violence in such terms. Instead he chooses to see the “potential mass killers” he addresses as either amoral or immoral, i.e., that what drives them has nothing to do with morality, at least not of any sort he regards as valid.

I could go on at length here about morality and its importance, but I already have. Those who are interested in what I think morality has to do with White identity can consult Stupid/Crazy/Evil, Pathologization and Demonization, Morals, Morality and Moralizing, Universalism and Particularism, and Morality and Identity.

It will suffice here to note that morality, in the most general terms, is nothing more than a definition of good and bad, and at root it springs from a concern for some set of people. Any distortion in the distinction between this set of people and another, between us and them, creates moral confusion. Self-professed pro-Whites taking special pains to specifically condemn interracial violence perpetrated by fellow Whites is an especially perverse consequence of such confusion.

The result of Le Brun’s own failure to consider morality is clearest in the most recent example he examines, the case of Dylann Roof. Le Brun takes Roof’s verbal justification, “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country”, quite literally. And because he has settled on a purely pragmatic view, he is confused about its meaning:

These are probably Blacks who are the least linked with whatever grievance about crime Roof has with the Black community. They were rather exemplary members of their community who exhibit a self-discipline that surpasses that of so many Hollywood Nazis and keyboard warriors. We must remember that while The Bell Curve proves our racial incompatibility as a whole, the curves also overlap.

does anyone really believe that there will be fewer Black-on-White rapes because the potential perpetrators would not want to provoke another massacre in a Black Church? Also, Counter-Currents readers are too smart to believe his premise that “Blacks are taking over.”

An honest attempt to understand Roof’s thinking would include reading his purported manifesto. Roof’s insightfullness and race-based sense of moral outrage is clear throughout. In the last section, labelled “An Explanation”, Roof offers a rationale for his choice of target based on both symbolism and pragmatism.

Based on the manifesto it appears Roof sees race in somewhat coarse black versus White terms. Like many racialists, including even those who write at Counter-Currents, Roof seems not to fully appreciate the nature and influence of the jews. However, the manifesto does mention the “jewish agitation of the black race”, notes the bias and poisonous influence of the (thoroughly jewed) anti-White media, recognizes differences in race consciousness, and draws distinctions between various non-White races. In short, the manifesto indicates that Roof’s understanding runs far deeper than “blacks are taking over”. Thus Le Brun’s attempt to paint Roof as stupid is itself stupid.

Le Brun’s finding of fault with Roof or any of the other men whose cases he examines is literally beside the point. His main point is to condemn and thus disassociate himself from them. Early on he asserts his belief that such violence has been used “to hurt our cause through guilt by association”. At the end he reiterates and elaborates on this belief:

To conclude, I believe that White Nationalism has been harmed rather than helped by killers like Roof, Page, Breivik, Miller, etc. Indeed, some of their acts have been so catastrophically counter-productive, one must question whether they were really trying to advance political aims at all, as opposed to simply indulging in nihilistic destruction. (In which case, perhaps they should have begun by killing themselves.) Thus such shooters and shootings must be condemned in the strongest language possible. I hope that anyone reading this who is actually contemplating such a killing spree will think this through carefully, then either change his mind — or find some other website to read.

Le Brun deludes himself and is encouraging his readers do so as well. He reckons he can simply verbally disown those Whites he deems unworthy – whether less knowledgable, disciplined, or more militant than himself – and that this will somehow advance the broader White interests he so unselfconsciously conflates with and constrains to his personal beliefs.

I believe genocide is the larger catastrophy Whites face, and that it grinds on despite the relatively minor acts of retaliatory violence and condemnations Le Brun and others are so determined to deliver, not because of them. The stated aims of Roof and Breivik, the two cases with which I am most familiar, were two-fold: to call attention to the plight of their people and to inspire further action. I think they did advance these aims. I think if anything deserves be called out as counter-productive (not to mention ineffective) it is the condemnations of actors by conceited thinkers. Like Fjordman, Le Brun imagines that words can protect him from the consequences of his ideas.

Why Dylann Roof is RIGHT! – Whites UNDER-REACT to Racial threats

dylann_roof_100_1644

Rather than making a podcast of my own this week, I’m going to urge you to listen to this one instead. It was originally posted on YouTube. All I’ve done is carve out the unique commentary (leaving out the several other short videos the author attached to the end of his) and transcode the audio to MP3 (leaving out the author’s image slideshow). If you can, I encourage you to watch the whole thing in its original form.

As I described when I first linked the video a few days ago, this podcast contains some very sobering testimony from a White man in Africa, a Boer. Dedicating a post to it gives me a chance to say a bit more about it, and a few other Roof-related items and issues.

First off I’ll say that I had never heard from this Boer before, but was curious about what else he had to say and where his podcasts and other work was published. Starting at History Reviewed Channel, on YouTube, it’s apparent that he’s made several other podcasts, before and since this one. From URLs attached to some of them it seems he operates a set of similar-looking websites, including Ban Judaism, AfricanCrisis, AmericanCrisis, and HistoryReviewed. Some of the items on these sites are snippets of private chats, like this one. Some involve “The Editor”, a handle I recalled running across on Twitter, and which turns out to point back to the same person.

Regardless of who this man is, what he has to say in this podcast makes alot of sense. What he says comports, just as the general views attributed to Dylann Roof do, with my own view of reality, sanity, and morality – as far as I can tell, a more or less accurate description of what’s happening and why. I feel compelled to choose my words so precisely and cautiously because there are two strong currents among Whites which put forth more or less opposing views.

The first current, which is to condemn Roof, attacking his sanity and morality, I have already addressed. I consider this current itself to be not only mistaken but worthy of attack. The tragedy is that it’s proponents support and agree with Roof’s motives, but in joining the enemy to condemn Roof’s actions end up undermining themselves, calling into question their own motives and actions.

The second current, which is to dismiss Roof, attacking his reality, and thus by extension the White racial reality, I have not previously addressed. The Boer does so very briefly at the start of his podcast. In my own view this “psyops”/”truther”/”crisis actors” current is also mistaken, but not worthy of attack. More than anything else it is a distraction. It’s true-believing core proponents fundamentally disagree with Roof’s purported motives – at best because they are deracinated, at worst because they are anti-”racists” and jews. They present a false critique of the jewsmedia narrative, providing in fact an astroturf extension of the distortion and confusion the corporate jewish media creates, toward the same anti-White ends. In other words, they are part of, or at least participating in, the larger “psyop” they complain about. In this case I think the tragedy is in some jew-wise White racialists lending this surreal phenomenon credence and attention.

The authenticity of Dylann Roof, the Boer, and even myself is something Whites must judge for themselves. A measure of skepticism is normal and healthy, and I think Whites could use more of it when dealing with anything coming from the jewsmedia or academia. I think that if anything Whites underestimate the jews, their perfidy, and the confusion they very deliberately create around race, politics, and history.

That said, I’ll repeat that the manifesto attributed to Roof and the commentary coming from the Boer both strike me as authentic. If either are in fact coming from jews, who are presumably trying to discredit pro-White motives by tying them to violent acts, then they are failing. If it is jews, then they are doing a good job, making so much sense, that they do a bad job of discrediting White racial consciousness. My argument against the Roof-condemners is that they discredit themselves by arguing in terms of a morality or sanity they otherwise demonstrate they do not actually believe. My argument against the Roof-disbelievers is that they discredit themselves by arguing for a measure of skepticism and consciousness they otherwise demonstrate they do not practice.

The Boer well describes the current zeitgeist in Africa and America. Though he doesn’t identify it as such, he describes the jew’s oppression narrative behind this zeitgeist, driving it morally and ideologically, consistently excusing non-Whites and blaming Whites for everything, no matter the circumstances.

The Boer’s main point, with which I concur, is that the essence of “liberal”/jew power is lying, the con job, fraud. To that he adds the point that behind their dishonest rhetoric and argument they have other, hidden interests and loyalties at heart – either involving themselves personally, their employer, or non-Whites (and jews) more generally. That White “liberals” are race traitors, a worse kind of enemy compared to blacks. That their nightmare is that enough Whites will recognize that the threat posed by their lies is real, has to be taken seriously and stopped, especially by resorting to violence. And finally, based on his personal experience with the course of events over the past 60 years in Africa, he opines that “right-wing”/racialist Whites have failed because they have underestimated the extent and gravity of the situation, whereas the “liberal”/jew lying, and especially guilt-tripping, has been ruthless, and with devastating effect.

The Boer understands more about the jews than he lets on in his podcast about Roof. In another podcast, published just before Roof’s reprisal, he shares his attempt to describe the jewish problem to a friend. Whites colonised Blacks; Jews colonise Whites! – JEWS 101: Introduction to the Jewish problem puts it in a pithy way that any White should be able to comprehend, but especially those Whites outside Europe, for whom the colonialism guilt-trip hits closest to home. I would describe the relationship as parasitism rather than colonialism, and trace it back far beyond Spain 500 years ago, but the way the Boer sees and describes it is definitely on the right track. The colonialism analogy is perhaps even better for persuading someone who is still under the influence of Christianity, or finds an understanding rooted more in sociology than biology more appealing.

The Boer identifies two analogues to Roof – Anders Breivik, with whom most Whites are at least somewhat familiar, and Barend (Hendrik) Strydom, a Boer with whom most Whites outside of Africa are probably completely unfamiliar. As the various articles on the murderpedia.org page make clear, Christianity played an important role in Strydom’s mindset, which he shared with his family and the larger Boer White nationalist group to which he belonged. I found these passages particularly interesting:

By the time (Barend) Hendrik Strydom was sixteen he was already a member of a number of extremist right-wing organisations and had visions of an all-white nation being established in South Africa. He claimed to have attended a veldschool in Standard 8, where he had been warned against the communist system as well as drug and alchohol abuse. “We were taught to be proud of our country,”he said. “I began to read many books on politics in South Africa and also attended right-wing meetings. They were the only true political movements – unlike the Nationalist government which lies to the people.” He saw some of the reform movements introduced by the government as a ,sell-out. His views were encouraged by his father, Mr Nic Strydom, an ex policeman, an elder in the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk, and a former regional leader of the Heidelberg Afrikaaner Weerstands beweging (AWB). Mr Nic Strydom would later claim proudly in court that he had ‘planted the seeds of religion and right-wing political views’ in his son’s heart. He also maintained that his son was a dedicated churchgoer and a person who strongly believed in God. “I explained to him that, according to the Bible, each nation should have its own church and religion, which Hendrik accepted whole heartedly.” It was also Mr Strydom’s belief that ‘blacks were animals’. “Blacks are not human beings according to the Bible, and many books I have read, and in my eyes they are animals. Many books Hendrik and I have read state, among other things, that Jews of today are not whites, blacks are animals and all whites stem from the Israelites,” Mr Strydom added.

“I became more aware of the enemy, especially people belonging to the left-wing organizations such as the United Democratic Front and the so-called Workers Union and their affiliated organizations, which were all African National Congress front movements.” He saw the actions, which the government was taking to combat internal rebellion as ineffective and began to fear that South Africa was going to the communists.

Despite this realization, Strydom selected random blacks as targets, not White/jew communists. More important, he never expressed regret or otherwise betrayed himself, his cause, or his people:

On Wednesday, 17 May, Mr Justice Louis Harms found Strydom guilty on all counts and called for arguments in mitigation of sentence. “I see what I did as totally correct,” Strydom declared the following day. “If I had to do it again I would do the same thing”. When questioned about the Wit Wolwe movement, Strydom maintained that it had been established in February 1986, but would give no further details. The police claimed that investigations indicated that the Wit Wolwe was merely a figment of Strydoms imagination. When it was put to the accused that he was bragging in an attempt to make himself important, Strydom denied this.

Even more important, his family and his people, the Boere, did not abandon or betray him:

In a press interview given a few days after the sentencing, Mr Nic Strydom told reporters: “I’m proud of Hendrik because he sacrificed himself for his beliefs. He is an honest man and I respect him for that. He killed for love the love of a nation.”

Contrast this with Roof’s family, one of which supposedly expressed an eager desire to condemn and even “push the button” himself, not only before the trial, but before he could possibly have known hardly anything about what had happened or why. And though they should have been, knowing what they know, the many pro-Whites who similarly rushed to condemn Roof were really no better in this regard.

More about the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, or Afrikaner Resistance Movement:

The AWB was formed in 1973 by Eugène Terre’Blanche and six other far-right Afrikaners. Terre’blanche remained the leader until he was murdered on his farm in 2010.

The AWB flag is composed of three black sevens (forming a triskelion) in a white circle upon a red background. According to AWB, the sevens, ‘the number of JAHWEH’, ‘stand to oppose the number 666, the number of the anti-Christ’. Red is considered to represent Jesus’ blood, while black stands for bravery and courage. The inner white circle symbolises the “eternal struggle”, or according to other sources “eternal life”.[30] The flag bears a resemblance to the Swastika flag used by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany.

In the case of Strydom and the AWB, Christianity posed no moral obstacle to their racialism and even the use of violence in pursuit of their survival as a people. Likewise for some black nationalists, like the New Black Panthers. See, for example, Malik Shabazz Calls On Charleston Crowd To Finish “Mission” Killing “Slave Masters”. Shabazz urges violence and alludes approvingly to the black adoption of the oldest of jewish lies, their slaves-in-Egypt narrative.

Contrary to those White racialist naysayers who argue that it’s impossible to simply replace the jews in “what’s best for the jews”, in one way or another this is what nearly everyone actually does. It goes well beyond the confused racialism of black and White Christians who spell out their we-are-the-real-jews substitution more or less explicitly. Even those secular “liberal” (which includes most “conservative”) Whites who wouldn’t recognize it as such justify themselves with a mutation and expansion of the jewish moral code, a concern for “what’s best for jews/non-Whites”, which may in part even be sincere, but most of which is just a disguise for a narrower, “what’s best for myself”.

George Lincoln Rockwell speaking at UCLA 5/16/1967

george_lincoln_rockwell

In this relatively high-quality recording of George Lincoln Rockwell speaking at UCLA 5/16/1967 he covers many topics: How a jew editor distorted his Playboy interview (he did not live to answer Alex Haley’s jewed theatrical vision); losing Vietnam; how he was “almost a liberal” before he saw through the lies, e.g. Churchill’s 1920 article Zionism versus Bolshevism; how jews disguise their actions by putting non-jews on top and out front; the jewishness-as-religion fraud; the kosher tax; free speech and how jews stifle opposition by keeping others from reading/hearing what they hate (e.g. Rockwell, or Madison Grant’s Conquest of a Continent); on FDR whipping up hate during WWII; the name game, and more.

I wanted to put this speech on TFeed but I couldn’t find an audio file, so I downloaded the “video” from YouTube, transcoded it to mp3, and am making it available here for educational (i.e. fair use) purposes.

I found the image above (originally from Playboy, I presume) attached to From Ivory Tower to Privy Wall: On the Art of Propaganda at Daily Stormer – which provides another excellent example of Rockwell’s worldview.

Alt-Wrong: Andy Nowicki on the Jews

andy_nowicki

LET’S TALK ABOUT JEWS!

In his latest vlog, Alt Right co-editor Andy Nowicki walks the line between insufferable Jew-love and inveterate Jew-hate, considers the many fascinating parallels between anti-white and anti-Semitic rhetoric, asserts that racial solidarity ought not come at the expense of morality, and shows off his handsome nostrils.

This is an emotional, cathartic rant in which Nowicki displays his shallow understanding of race and discomfort with thinking seriously about “JOOOOOOOOOOOOS”. A more accurate title would have been “LET’S TALK ABOUT INSUFFERABLE JEW-HATE!”, because what Nowicki actually talks about is how “a certain faction” of Alt-Righters and White nationalists annoy him by constantly bringing up the jews.

Nowicki says he’s leery of making a distinction between Whites and jews. What he’s actually leery about is Whites making the distinction. Though jews look “white” to him and he realizes jewish identity is “an elusive thing” he faults more race- and jew-aware Whites for being more wary than he is. Rather than seeing crypsis as a jew feature he mistakes it for a White bug.

Nowicki admits that thinking of jews as a racial Other doesn’t exactly work for him. When he tries to imagine, “for the sake of argument”, that Whites and jews are distinct, it’s clear he cannot even see Whites as equivalent to jews, much less as truly separate and more worthy of his sympathy. In a telling gaffe he imagines Whites as “gentiles”, i.e. racial Other from the point of view of jews. Then, instead of noting distinctions he explains his interest in spotting “parallels”, by which he means seeing criticism from a point of view more sympathetic to jews than Whites.

Nowicki correctly notes that “anti-semitism” means any attempt to blame the jews for anything. When he mentions anti-Whitism, however, he fails to recognize that the jews blame Whites for everything. Never mind that this is directly connected to the most obvious and damning distinction of all: That jews have a homeland, because Whites; whereas Whites have no homeland, because jews.

How Enemies Treat Enemies

Germany embarks on fresh attempt to ban NPD

The charge most often levelled against White nationalists is that they’re “supremacists” who seek to exclude, ban, imprison or otherwise impinge upon others. Many Whites make the mistake of thinking this charge stems from the violation of some general principle against exclusion, banning, or imprisoning people on the basis of their race or beliefs.

But at times the mask slips, and it’s clear that the current ruling judaized globalist regime regards banning and so forth to be a perfectly proper and acceptable way to treat their enemies. The real charge against White nationalists, as evident in the report above, is that any subset of Whites organizing politically to do what’s best for themselves, separate and apart from others, is bad because it is “anti-semitic”/”racist”, i.e. bad for jews and other non-Whites. By citing “anti-semitism” in addition to and distinct from “racism” the ruling regime is just making it crystal clear that for them the overriding principle is that the best interests of the jews come before anyone or anything else.

fanning_the_flames_of_white_consciousness

“White Pathology” on Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn

At 2PM ET this afternoon at the White network Carolyn Yeager and I will discuss Kevin MacDonald’s Recently in The Occidental Quarterly: Special Sections on White Pathology.

A related video I’ve run across is Psychology of White Self Hatred, which is introduced by the speaker, Hugh MacDonald, as: Group Polarization and the Fad of Ethnomasochism. The case is well stated, as far as it goes. My concern with any exposition of “White pathology” is that it sometimes amounts to nothing more than a review of symptoms, with causes left unexplored if not unmentioned.

Whites do not exist in a vacuum. We fail in refusing to acknowledge the role and import of the Other – among other things, the harm of the jewish narrative cannot be countered if it is not recognized.

UPDATE: On White Pathology, with Tanstaafl (Download)