Tag Archives: white nationalism

The Jew Card

Over the past few years the anti-White/pro-jew regime has been increasing frank in expressing its sympathy for jews and antipathy for Whites. Mainstream political discourse turned a corner somewhere between Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” speech in 2016 and Facebook’s decision to specifically ban pro-White speech in 2019. So in less than three years the regime’s anti-White attitude has gone from better left unsaid to matter of course, now quickly being codified into law. And at every turn the best interests of jews as a collective are cited as justification for each statement or act taken against Whites.

It isn’t the words nationalism or supremacy which make “White nationalism” and “White supremacy” shibboleths. It’s the word White. And that’s entirely due to jewing.

A small signpost in the anti-White zeitgeist flew by less than a year ago. When the jewsmedia screeched that Darren Beattie, a minor figure in the kikeservative-in-chief’s White House, was too White, Beattie immediately lost his job. Now Beattie’s back, and there’s a telling twist in the story.

When Beattie was first fired, or quit, there was to my knowledge no denouncement from him or his conservative colleagues about the explicitly anti-White nature of the jewsmedia attack. One pitiful objection used the same line of argument as “Wagner’s music” above, claiming that The Menchken Club is not a White thing but a jew thing, or at least an alt-jew thing, founded and led by Paul Gottfried.

Since then the jewsmedia attacked Steve King in the same way, and he had the temerity to coyly wonder out loud what it was all about. King was immediately denounced by the entire regime, “left” and “right”, and even lamely joined them in officially condemning any form of White this or White that. King started out pretending he didn’t understand the jewy nature of this anti-White zeitgeist. He quickly changed his tune and let it slip that he actually did understand, and sided with the “innocent jews”, against Whites.

Beattie may be confused and create confusion in others because he’s some kind of mischling or crypto-jew. That’s a feature, not a bug. The Mencken Club, and alt-jewing generally, plays up and feeds upon such confusion. The alt-jew stands athwart mainline jewing shouting, “NOT THAT IT SHOULD MATTER!” Though insisting jews are “white” remains a popular delusion, when push comes to shove the difference between Whites and jews is getting harder to deny. Increasingly even in popular semitically correct political discourse jews are not merely distinguished from Whites, the two groups are regarded as utter political opposites.

The cognitive dissonance results from a clash of jew narratives. Putting “Whites are racist” together with “jews are white” logically produces “jews are racist”. But then that’s “anti-semitism”, which totally trumps the “racism”. You can try to pretend you don’t understand what “combating racism and anti-semitism” means. But those are the marching orders of the anti-White/pro-jew regime, and even its dimmer bulbs get the gist, that jews are good and Whites are evil. The most reasonable conclusion is that jew narratives are just lies, part of what even ordinary people recognize as “fake news”. The intent behind those lies is to create racial confusion, because jews are not White, they’re anti-White.

Confusion on this elementary point prevails throughout the portion of dar al goyim that kikeservatives and alt-jews call judeo-Christian civilization. Here in Jewmerica the anti-White/pro-jew regime is most blatant, operating under a two-party system which makes its mechanics more transparent. One party is more overtly anti-White, the other more overtly pro-jew. Thus the partisans on one side imagine that the other side is too pro-White, and the other side responds by imagining that their accusers are too anti-jew.

A perfect illustration of this totally jewed blatantly anti-White political environment occurred earlier this month, when Ilhan Omar called Stephen Miller a White nationalist. From the get go the jewsmedia has promoted this reality-inverting con, screeching as if Trump and his administration are too White. Even before Darren Beattie was sacked the mask had already slipped.

Though the jewsmedia has sometimes recognized Miller’s influence, they’ve never harped on it, much less made his racial identity the basis for their attack, as they have with King, Bannon, and Gorka. Why? The same reason they’ve given President Kushner a pass – because Miller is a jew.

It you prefer to hear it jewsplained, Eric Levitz did a perfectly toxic job. Half of it is right in the title: “If You Are Defending Stephen Miller, You Are an Ally of Anti-Semitism”. The other half was in the original title: “Ilhan Omar Is Right: Stephen Miller Is a White Nationalist”. This is the jew normal. They regard Whites as their enemy. The animus is racial. Thus they see any jew they imagine might be aiding and abetting Whites as a traitor to their tribe.

This is the point that kikeservatives and alt-jews try to dance around. Whites have a jew problem. It isn’t a new problem, and it isn’t up for debate. The jewsmedia reports on the problem all the time, they simply present it the other way around.

In Memoriam – Paul Hickman

paul_hickman

NS Outlook: October into November 2017 – British Movement News & Views:

RIP PAUL HICKMAN

The team at the BM Sunwheel Office were saddened to hear of the death of West Midlands racial Nationalist and activist Paul Hickman. Paul Hickman was the broadcaster behind the on-line radio ‘Voice of Albion’ and operated on the internet as ‘Birmingham Nationalist’. Ruthlessly hounded by self-styled anti-fascists, Paul lost his job and struggled to find work, his political activism also drew on to him the unwanted attentions of the State and its agencies. From what little information coming to us here, we are led to believe that Paul Hickman took his own life. A sad situation for someone still in their thirties and a loss to British Nationalism.

Also, from the sidebar at Renegade Broadcasting:

After 2 years of restrictive bail for posting non-PC stickers, being harassed and doxed by antifa and losing his employment, former Renegade host Paul Hickman took his life. RIP.

Listen to Paul’s archives here.

This is sad news. I first spoke with Paul Hickman a little over four years ago when he was starting his program Voice of Albion at the White network. I had the pleasure of joining him on air on two occasions, in February and April of 2014.

I did not know Paul well, but had hoped to meet him in person someday. He helped educate me in several ways. He was a somber and perceptive man. He could clearly see the horror unfolding in Britain specifically but also for the White race more generally. He had been increasingly openly active in the British National Party, but by 2014 had became dissatisfied with the leadership of Nick Griffin. In response Paul became more radical, in the best possible sense, shifting his attention and support to British Movement and National Action.

At tWn Paul focused mainly on the life and work of BNP founder John Tyndall, whom he clearly held in high esteem. He moved his program to Renegade in April of 2014 and while there interviewed a variety of bright contemporary European nationalists. Paul’s conversation with Simon Sheppard is a favorite.

At Renegade Paul also produced a three-part series on Arnold Leese’s book My Irrelevant Defence being Meditations Inside Gaol and Out on Jewish Ritual Murder, originally published in 1938. Leese was a brilliant writer, a learned student of the jew problem, not nearly as well known as he should be. I recommend Paul’s reading and discussion of Leese’s book as a way to get to know both of them.

Voice of Albion: Jewish Ritual Murder (10-8-14)Download

Voice of Albion: Jewish Ritual Murder [II] (10-29-14)Download

Voice of Albion: Jewish Ritual Murder [III] (11-12-14)Download

Paul Hickman was an intelligent and articulate man, an activist who tried to help his nation and his race, at great cost to himself. He will be missed.

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 in Germany in his time, but also foresaw 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.