Kosher Covid

An analogy.

One can make an analogy between covid and the Jewish Question (JQ), and not only because Jews can be modeled as a disease within the Western organism.  We can consider the reaction to each, and how a Manichean schism of extremes emerges.

With covid, opinion is split between those who treat the disease as the second coming of the Black Death, a plague that requires the most stringent and hysterical reaction and public health measures. On the other hand, we have the flubros who consider a disease that has killed millions worldwide as a hoax and the vaccine for this disease as a “toxic killshot” designed to ensure mass genocide. God forbid anyone take a more reasonable and balanced intermediate position that the yellow monkeys of China unleashed a serious pandemic on the world, albeit one that is not an existential threat, and certain measures should be taken against the pandemic, as long as those measures are not more damaging to society than is the disease itself.

With respect to the Jews, many in Der Movement focus obsessively on Jews and the JQ, and consider all problems of Whites to derive from the Jews, who are elevated to the status of negative supermen. Jews are considered the source of evil under the standard “movement” approach. The opposing view is to relieve the Jews of most or all responsibility for the downfall of White interests, to mock and ridicule those who focus on “the Jew thing” and to ascribe White problems to “modernity” or “White liberals” or to some other non-Jewish cause.  They accept the Cofnas default position while the “anti-Semites” accept MacDonald’s thesis. 

So, it’s either it is all the Jews, and we are all Julius Streicher, or the Jews are innocent scapegoats for historical processes for which they have no responsibility. A balanced view would be that the Jews are an intelligent, intense, highly ethnocentric, and very influential minority group whose interests are incompatible with those of the White majority, and whose actions deeply harm those White majority interests.  They are necessary but not sufficient for what has happened to Whites; dealing with the JQ is necessary in order to solve our problems but by itself is not enough. The problems would exist even without the Jews (although it is debatable whether the problems would ever have gotten to the current dire point without the Jews), but it is also true that we cannot effectively address those problems without a full accounting of the JQ. We need to put the JQ in the proper perspective and accord it the importance it merits, no more and no less, and use formulate a response commensurate to the problem; again, no more and no less.

Yockey made an immune system analogy – a fever helps to fight a disease but the fever itself is not healthy.  Anti-Semitism and an obsession with the JQ may be necessary to deal with the JQ but is itself not beneficial to a movement or to the broader society. Thus, we need an appropriate dose to treat the disease. Remember, the dose makes the poison, what can be a helpful drug at one (lower) does can be a poison at another (higher) dose.  We need just the right amount of anti-Semitism and a focus on the JQ to deal with the problem, too little will not solve the problem but too much can be counter-productive as well.

In his trilogy on the Jews, MacDonald noted that the Spanish Inquisition was a response to the conversos being cryptic ethnocentric (practicing) Jews, but that the Inquisition damaged Spanish society. That is an example of how the response, if not carefully calibrated, can be worse than the disease. It is therefore important for us to properly gauge the degree to which the JQ is a problem and the degree to which a response should be actualized.  A personal anecdote provides another example of this.  Back in the mid-late 1990s, I had a conversation with a prominent “movement” leader who shall remain nameless, and the topic of the fall of communism on the USSR and Eastern Europe came up. I expressed the opinion that this historical event was, on balance, a good thing, freeing the people from Marxist tyranny and opening up the eastern half of Europe to racial nationalism. The Grand Poobah disagreed, expressing the opinion that he hoped that the communist party would return to power in Russia.  Why?  It was because the leader of the communist party – Zyuganov – was “anti-Jewish.”  I remember thinking to myself – “What an idiot. By that criterion, you may as well have the Nation of Islam rule America.” For the sake of politeness, I kept that opinion to myself and just changed the subject.  But you can see how a monomaniacal focus on the Jews can lead one to promote destructive ideas. Of course, the opposite is true as well, ignoring the very real problem of the Jews can lead to destruction as well. It is important to keep a balance, just as we today need to be rational and balanced in our approach to the covid pandemic.

Jewmania

Nutzis.

I am as critical of the Jews as anyone, but things need to be kept in the proper perspective. There are some activists who are so obsessed about the Jews that it clouds their judgment.

I recall having a conversation in the 1990s with a very prominent pro-White activist – who shall remain nameless here – about the situation in Eastern Europe.  I stated my opinion that the fall of communism there was a great opportunity and a good thing for all of us, particularly for our Eastern European brothers and sisters.  Yes, there may be short-term political chaos and economic instability, some social suffering, and, yes, American degeneracy could creep in there, but in the long run, the eastern half of Europe was freed from this murderous, incompetent ideology, this anti-nationalist ideology, and it opened the field for the emergence of racialist and nationalist activity. In the long-term it was a net benefit. This was a world historical opportunity to introduce a new mindset, a fresh beginning, for Eastern Europe.

Well, this prominent activist was having none of it. He in fact wanted the Communist Party of Russia to come back to power. Why?  Because the leader of the Russian Communist Party at that time had made some critical comments about the Jews, and also because the anti-communist Yeltsin was a “stooge of the Jews.” I remember thinking “what a monomaniacal idiot this guy is.”

Consider. Louis Farrakhan has made critical comments about the Jews.  Do we want the USA to be run by the Nation of Islam? Virtually every American President in the past century has been a stooge of the Jews. Does that mean we should instead be led by, say, Black radicals or Muslim jihadists?  They’re anti-Jewish after all!  

Not everything is about the Jews. One cannot support a leader or a movement simply because they criticize Jews.  The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

What made that activist’s comments hypocritical is that the same person always criticized Christianity (justifiably in my opinion) as an alien Jewish invention foisted on Europeans, and even if Christianity was sometimes anti-Jewish, it didn’t change the fact that, ultimately, it was Jewish-invented memetic poison, a destructive influence on the European soul. Well, isn’t the same true of communism?  And, by the way, I never agreed with Yockey’s pro-Soviet line either; he was also monomaniacal about the Jews in that regard.

The problem is that some activists hate the Jews more than they love their own people.

On the Jews

Thoughts.

Jews often complain about “resurgent anti-Semitism,” and, indeed, one can find many websites and social media accounts (at least before they are censored) highly critical of the Jews.  Let us consider together.

Most people accepted and have accepted the mainstream Holocaust narrative. Therefore, at the end of WWII, the Jews enjoyed the sympathy and goodwill of most people in the (White) world (as well as the beneficiary of White guilt). So how did we reach the point we are at today, where people meme anti-Semitic cartoons that would make Julius Streicher blush? Some would day that the “sickness” of anti-Semitism is inherent in the evil goyim and this is all independent of Jewish behavior (despite the fact that Jews have been “persecuted” by every nation, other than their own, that they have lived in, since the beginning of their history). A more economical explanation is that anti-Semitism is simply a reaction to Jewish behavior.

If the Jews were simply another ethnic-religious group then they could have fit in with the fabric of America and enjoyed the goodwill of the American people. This did not happen. How did the Jews repay White America for the sacrifice of blood and treasure spent in defeating Hitler? By destroying the traditional White America, through the “civil rights” movement, forced racial integration, the 1960s counter-culture and the anti-war movement, the 1965 immigration act and the consequent mass alien immigration, through the Frankfurt School and the degeneration of American culture, etc. Europe was punished for Nazism, even those nations that fought Hitler, via The Great Replacement.

So is the current zeitgeist of anti-Semitism in any way surprising?

Of relevance.  Solzhenitsyn:

How do we Russians take responsibility for the pogroms, for those merciless peasant arsonists, for the mad revolutionary soldiers and sailor beasts, and the Jews get to spread their hands in blameless innocence over the countless Yiddish names among the commissar-butchers who commanded the whole wretched business?

Of interest to any Black readers (*) of this site:

In my interview for Griffin's One Sheaf One Vine book, I discussed personal experiences growing up with Jews and Blacks and with almost every racial type possible. One thing I didn't have time to get into there was my observations about Jewish attitudes toward Blacks.  While there is much here to consider, too much to be completely gone into in one paragraph here, a brief summary would be as follows. Please note that here I specifically refer to my own experiences and observations, including things I have personally heard and /or discussed with Jews over the years. While many Jews are willing to use Blacks (and other non-Whites, but especially Blacks) in an instrumental fashion as weapons against White Gentiles, my observations have been that many Jews hate and fear Blacks. This hatred and fear is immediate, primal, and personal - it is based on a fear of Black crime, violence, and rioting; it is a direct personal fear that a given Black or group of Blacks will harm a given Jew or group of Jews. Fear breeds hatred, especially when mixed with contempt; while Jews have contempt for all non-Jews, they particularly have a low opinion of Blacks. Now, Jews hate and fear White Gentiles as well, but this is a different level of fear and hatred. Jews don't fear Whites at the level of the individual violent criminal or at the level of the violent mob as they fear Blacks; instead, Jews fear Whites at the social and political level - that Whites will politically organize a society-wide movement that will be directly or indirectly anti-Semitic. While Jews have contempt for White Gentles as their intellectual inferiors, they do consider Whites to be very much more intelligent and capable than are Blacks. Thus, while Jews complain about Black anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish Black leaders, they do not take that threat seriously other than that it may provoke limited riots or individual crimes of violence. Jews contemptuously dismiss Blacks as too unintelligent and undisciplined (and too easily manipulated) to be a threat at the political level, unlike the threat from Whites. Thus, Whites they consider intelligent and disciplined enough to organize against Jews at the national level; after all, Jews have had bitter experience with this. Again, here I am not here expressing my own opinions, but merely summarizing what I have heard and/or discussed with various Jews over the years about their opinions. I believe that thoughtful Blacks should have an understanding of attitudes toward their race; for many Blacks, what I write here will not come as a surprise.

*And why shouldn't there be such readers? Thoughtful individuals of any race may be interested in bluntly honest talk of issues of relevance to race and society.

Relationship Observations

Behold the female.

In a book by the Soviet defector “Viktor Suvorov” he made a point, essentially – “imagine how bad Stalin and Soviet communism must have been if Ukrainians (and others) initially welcomed Hitler as a liberator.”

By analogy, imagine how bad White women must be if White men prefer Asian women; likewise, imagine how bad Black women must be if Black men prefer White women.

Advice for young men (*) contemplating marriage – long-term relationships are front-loaded for men and back-loaded for women, and, over time, the benefit vs. cost ratio of back-loading greatly outweighs that of front-loading. Thus, over time, women greatly benefit from marriage while men incur the costs. Put another way, early on, for men, benefits outweigh costs while later on costs outweigh benefits, while for women it is precisely the opposite. Since the latter phase is much greater in time than is the early phase, the net benefit is for women and the net cost is for men.

What do I mean by this? Relationships are best for men at the very beginning, while better for women for the rest of it, with increasing relative benefits for women over time.

Women are youngest and most attractive, and most eager and willing to sexually please the man, at the beginning of the relationship; further, the woman would be most agreeable overall and would make efforts to suppress negative aspects of her personality and behavior until the man is trapped into marriage. Thus, men get what they (generally) want at the very beginning of the relationship. 

Let’s assume that after several years of a generally agreeable situation, the man consents to marriage. We will further assume that, as is typical, the couple has children. Now, the woman begins to get what she wants – the security of marriage, a legal hold over the man who can thus be exploited, children and a father for the children, etc. It is a stereotype that, after marriage, and particularly after children, women become much more disagreeable, less sexually active, unpleasant with nagging, etc. This latter “back-loaded” phase is typically much, much longer than the relatively brief “front-loaded” phase at the beginning.  In essence, men are buying a brief period of agreeable companionship and sexual activity with a younger woman in exchange for many subsequent bleak years/decades of the “back-loaded” phase that favors the woman.

*Although this is aimed at White men, it applies for most men, although possibly in very patriarchal cultures (i.e., Middle. East, Near East, South Asian), it may not apply. For cultures (i.e., Black “American”, in which marriage, and other long-term relationships, is not very dominant, it may not apply either).

Leftist Chutzpah, re: Portland

Hypocrisy. 

Behold the Left:

Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting.

That’s The Huffington Post.  Improve experience by suspending commenting.  Gee, I guess they’re losing the debate, so…

Sort of like Greg Johnson “banning” people and refusing to debate them.

Anyway, what the Left is whining about this time - and what they don't want comments about because those comments would expose leftist hypocrisy - is that, according to the Left, the "Proud Boys" and other rightist groups are being allowed to "be violent with impunity" in Portland; the police are standing back and doing nothing.

Now, the chutzpah there is incredible.  For weeks, the Left has been running wild in America with near-impunity, particularly in Portland and Seattle - rioting, vandalism, attempted murder, assault and battery, lasers shined in eyes, anti-White racial harassment, wielding weapons, repeated race-based violations of federal fair housing laws to try and force Whites out of "gentrified" previously-Black neighborhoods, attacks against police, hate crimes against Whites, blocking traffic, and open treasonous insurrection against the US government with their violence-ridden "autonomous zone."  All of that with near impunity.  For the last four years of the administration of Antifa Don Trump, there has been anarcho-tyranny - the radical Left has been allowed to run wild with impunity, and when rightists, including Antifa Don's own deluded supporters, fight back, it are they, and they alone, who are arrested, prosecuted, and persecuted.  But, now, briefly, in Portland, we have a single moment of pure anarchy instead of anarcho-tyranny - BOTH sides are being allowed, more or less, to do what they want.  Very well.  And the outcome is such as that anyone could predict - in a fair and open battle, without anarcho-tyranny intervention, the Right comes out on top.  This proves, once and for all, that Antifa is, and always has been, part of the System, a branch of local, state, and federal government, street fighters for global capitalism, etc. They have achieved everything because they are protected by the System that they are a part of.  But, given a specific situation (Portland police losing their patience because they have been abandoned by the same System they and Antifa both serve) in which official protection is briefly withdrawn from the Left, and we see that they start whining in The Huffington Post how they are being "victimized" and "not protected by the police"- the same police they want to defund (as there is competition between the two branches of the System - why have both doing the same job?).

The lesson here is what people on the Right have been saying all along - the real problem is anarcho-tyranny, not anarchy.  If there was anarchy, then the Right could fill in the niche space left by the absence of state authority and institute their own law and order; however, the current System of anarcho-tyranny is an alliance between the System and the Left - however an alliance that is sometimes unstable when factions of the System see their own interests threatened by the leftist violence they encourage.

The carnivore diet.

I often mock Der Movement as a modern form of Ostara. And, as always, the other shoe drops.  The only thing worse than a Type I is a homosexual Type I.  Puts new meaning in the term “fetishist” eh?

A Western about moralpathy.

Gore Vidal in Julian (sort of paraphrasing Machiavelli):

One curious aspect of human society is that preventive measures are seldom taken to avert disaster, even web the exact nature of the approaching calamity is perfectly plain.

One can consider all sorts of easily foreseen "movement" disasters with respect to that quote.

An observation - True enough, the USSR was repressive throughout its entire existence, but there is this interesting dichotomy: It was when the USSR was led by non-Slavs (Jews, Georgians, mongrels like Lenin, etc.) that there was the mass murder of millions of Russian and Ukrainian Slavs, but after the Slavs took the reigns of power after the death of Stalin, the mass murder stopped (although of course repression remained). I suppose that this dichotomy is purely a coincidence - right? 

Who Let the Lenin Out?

One more bacillus.

Read this. Emphasis added.

For anybody but Lenin those days would have been solemn with soul-searching; the professional revolutionary, trained and self-disciplined and dedicated for years to the moment of action, cast off and toiling ceaselessly in the squalor of foreign exile to keep his comrades up to the mark, was going home to put his ideas into practice. The long, fantastic train journey, arranged by the German government, which saw in this obscure fanatic one more bacillus to let loose in tottering and exhausted Russia to spread infection, was an opportunity for stocktaking of the most elaborate kind. But to Lenin it was merely a slow and tedious way of getting on with the job.

That’s great. Catalyze the rise of communism and the formation of the Soviet Union, be complicit in the crimes of three quarters of a century of bloody Bolshevism, then fight a world war that helped finish wrecking the White race ostensibly to destroy the Marxist state you helped create, then, afterwards, leverage your power and position in the EU to invite a migrant invasion and twist the arms of other Europeans to take “their fair share” of the demographic nightmare thus unleashed.

It’s Der Master Race!

By the way, if I was a Russian, I'd be more upset about this than about Operation Barbarossa. After all, the 20th century agony of Russia really started with this episode.  Everything that came after was a consequence, rubbing salt in the wound, so to speak.

Notes from the East

Eastern Europe.

I believe I have a fairly good grasp about some of the fundamentals of Eastern Europe, not only from “theory” – reading, etc. - but also from practical experience. 

I have traveled in Eastern Europe several times, focused on that part of Eastern Europe that Huntington terms “The Orthodox Civilization.” It is crucial to note that this was not as a tourist in hotels, but as private guest of ordinary people, in their homes, living as they did, participating in their normal daily activities, “going native,” so to speak.  I also have known a significant number of Eastern European immigrants here in America, from both the area Huntington (but not Yockey) would consider “Western” (i.e., Catholic Eastern Europe) as well as the aforementioned "non-Western" “Orthodox" cultural area. Many of these are people who – like the people I met overseas – lived under the communist regime and can compare that to both the situation in their homelands today, as well as to Western Europe and, especially, to the USA.

Some general impressions:

Were/Are they Western?  Yes and no (and this really applies to both sides of Huntington’s Eastern European divide, albeit a bit more to the Orthodox side of course – Yockey was more right than Huntington; Catholic Eastern Europe is NOT the same as Western Europe).  

My experience is that when these people come to “the West” there isn’t much difference compared to people originating from Western Europe, so even if you do not want to include Eastern Europe as civilizationally part of the West (I’m agnostic) – although it is of course racially "Western" in the ‘White European” sense – the people are certainly assimilable to the Western High Culture. In their own nations?  Sort of a gray area. Certainly, they are NOT non-Western in the same way as non-Europeans are. But neither are they the same as Western Europeans (Western Europe both north or south – while the first split in Europe genetically is north/south, culturally it is east/west).

Again, it is sort of a gray area.  Being part of a grander Europe (today unfortunately in the EU and hopefully in the future in a pan-European “Imperium”) will cement the “Western” aspects of those nations, while at the same time preserving their uniqueness. It is a matter of emphasis – being a unique and distinct part of the broader West (or what comes after) or being something else entirely. This is something that will require more analysis and discussion in the future.

The more wide awake among them are skeptical of the changes that have taken place in their homelands, favor a sort of nationalistic socialism (many of course do not want to hear about “national socialism” but likely would identify more with “national bolshevism” or another form of patriotic and ethnocentric racialist socialist “communism”), take a fatalistic view of the low birth rates (among natives) in their homelands, etc. Some of them have opinions and politics that would make them natural adherents to the Far Right parties and organizations that exist in their nations. Unfortunately, the people I knew did not support those parties, or at least did not identify as such, even though there may have been some sympathy for those far rightist groups.  Reasons?  In many cases, the same reasons for not supporting the Far Right as in the West. They didn’t want to “waste their time” or “throw their vote away” with a minor party, instead gravitating to the more centrist mainstream parties. They were turned off by “extremism” and some of the Nutzi, Type I tendencies of the Far Right. They were influenced by “right-thinking” opinion from the West, and considered that an embrace of the Far Right would endanger their nation's prospective EU membership and make Western Europeans look down on them (see below).  Pro-Russian elements didn’t like associations of the Far Right with “Nazism” and “Fascism.”

These people, used to communist censorship, and believing the West was “free,” did not believe or were not concerned about “hate speech laws” and censorship in the West.

They really do not like Gypsies. And with good reason. I had some experience with Gypsies in their adopted Eastern European habitat (unmixed Gypsies look, and dress, just like low caste, dark skinned Indians, and behave like a mix of South Asians, Negroes, and Hasidic Jews – culture of the first, criminal behavior of the second, and ethnocentric insularity and separateness of the third), and I heard of plenty of stories from Eastern Europeans of being victimized by Gypsies. Balkanoid Eastern Europeans also hate Turks, again for good reason.

Those people (the ones overseas in their own nations) – many of them had healthy racial instincts and did not want to live among non-Whites, yet many believed the leftist propaganda that non-Whites, especially Blacks, were “oppressed” in the USA. If you tried to explain the racial facts of America to people who have never lived here, they did not believe it and thought you were nuts.  However, those who come to America quickly learn the truth. I was bemused to witness an interaction between the two types of individuals – an immigrant going home to visit and a stay-at-home native.  Stay at home native: “When are they going to give the Blacks in America their rights?”  Returning immigrant response: “The Blacks in America have more rights than the Whites do.”  The former thought the latter was nuts. One has to live in a reality to overcome propaganda about it.

I wasn’t there to do a FMA-like “bang East Europe,” but I at least observed that the (young) women there were more slim and attractive than the ghastly landwhales in “the West.” There were always unexpected surprises in this regard. You would go into some small shop, like a small ramshackle hardware store next to a local transit shop in a big city, and inside would be a very beautiful woman behind the counter. You’d go to the local food store and see young women looking and dressing like models. The people behaved civilized on public transportation – a relief to those of us who have experienced feral Coloreds on American public transport – although some of the men apparently have never heard of the concept of deodorants.

They have an inferiority complex with respect to Western Europe.  One of the times I was there was right before some of the nations formally became part of the EU; they had been more or less accepted and were just waiting for it to be finalized.  Talking to some of the more educated professionals there, I got a sense of what their pro-EU attitude was about.  I expressed my skepticism and warned them they would regret joining – not because of some asinine “ethnonationalist” opposition to a “European Union” but because the EU as currently constituted was (and still is) an anti-European monstrosity that represents the interests of everyone in Europe EXCEPT for native Europeans. I told them that they would eventually be subjected to alien immigration and that they would be made subservient to their Gypsy population, who would be privileged over them in the eyes of the leftist globalist EU elites. I warned them about the soft totalitarianism of the West. My objections were scoffed at (these were people who grew up, and lived, under communism and thought that, surely, “the West was free”) and they asserted that “being in the EU means that we are part of Europe.”

The main point for them was not economic hand-outs or the right to migrate to Western Europe (or protection from Russia or whatever). It was their need for acceptance, to be considered as equals, as Europeans, by Western Europe (in their minds, the arbiters of being European), and, somehow, by being in the EU, they would become akin to Western Europeans, and differences between West and East (that they saw as disadvantageous to themselves) would be largely effaced.  They wanted to become full-fledged and respected members of the “European community” and EU membership was the answer. And of course, they expressed this inferiority complex in other ways as well, but the EU situation was the clearest, most direct example - "being in the EU means that we are part of Europe” – they needed and wanted an indication of acceptance from the West.  They felt like their identity as Europeans required validation and legitimization from the SJW West that was already suffering bitterly from liberal globalism, multiracialism and multiculturalism, and a loss of civilizational identity.

Clarification: I am NOT saying that all Eastern Europeans had (or have) such an inferiority complex - just those ones I interacted with overseas, and some of the ones I have known, and know, in the USA.  And I certainly do NOT believe that the inferiority complex is justified (see below).  This account is descriptive only at this point, not prescriptive. Prescription follows.

Conclusion: All in all, these are good people, in many cases with a tragic history, who were misled into thinking that they needed some sort of legitimization from Western Europe, people hoodwinked into the EU disaster, people who were unsure of their civilizational place between West and East. Ultimately, they belong associated with the West. They do not need legitimization from anyone; perhaps the opposite will one day be true, Western Europe will require acceptance and legitimization from the East. In any case, long time readers of my work know that one (of several) major area of disagreement I have with Yockey is Yockey's considering of Eastern Europe as "the other," completely separate from the West (although he first mentioned that individuals from the East can be assimilated and later talked about "Western possibilities" in Russia - accepting albeit somewhat condescending).  All parts of Europe - east and west, north and south - need to be full equals in an Imperium.

(Jewish) Crime and (White) Punishment

Food for thought.

Fyodor Dostoevsky was very prescient. When reading the excerpt below consider that the plague in question could be thought of as Marxism broadly defined – not only traditional Marxism, but Cultural Marxism, Psychological Marxism (Freud, Frankfurt School),  Racial Marxism, every social infection and perversion that has been propagated by a certain Levantine (Asia) tribe (microbes, and the memes are microbes as well) infecting the White race (Europe and then the world). Fyodor the Christian would no doubt be offended by my considering Christianity as one of the egalitarian Marxian creeds emanating from Asia to infect European Man.

Excerpt from the epilogue of Crime and Punishment.  Emphasis added:

He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia. All were to be destroyed except a very few chosen. Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection. All were excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify. Men killed each other in a sort of senseless spite. They gathered together in armies against one another, but even on the march the armies would begin attacking each other, the ranks would be broken and the soldiers would fall on each other, stabbing and cutting, biting and devouring each other. The alarm bell was ringing all day long in the towns; men rushed together, but why they were summoned and who was summoning them no one knew. The most ordinary trades were abandoned, because everyone proposed his own ideas, his own improvements, and they could not agree. The land too was abandoned. Men met in groups, agreed on something, swore to keep together, but at once began on something quite different from what they had proposed. They accused one another, fought and killed each other. There were conflagrations and famine. All men and all things were involved in destruction. The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.

The new pure chosen people – ethnocentric White nationalists?

.. but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.

Maybe because they were censored and deplatformed?

Political Socialism

Different from economic.

I am a Political Socialist, which is completely different from an Economic Socialist.  The latter is what most people consider “socialist” – that is, nationalization of all industries, full distribution of wealth, opposition to a market economy (in favor of a command economy), all on the “happy road” to communism – and with implications of leftist views on race, culture, and society.  Political Socialism is more associated with the Far Right – Spengler, Yockey, the National Socialism of Hitlerism, the National Christian Socialism of Codreanu, the corporatism of Italian Fascism, etc.  Political Socialism is the organizing of society for the good of the nation and people, it puts the good of the whole above that of the individual, it is more on the collectivist spectrum than are the hyper-individualist “Western” societies of today, it wishes to bring all social and economic classes of a people into accord and ease divisions between them.  Above all, Political Socialism asserts that the purpose of the Economy is to serve the interests of Nation and People, as opposed to Political Capitalism that believes that all – including National and People – must serve the interests of the Economy.

Thus, Political Socialism is compatible with supply and demand, a mixed “capitalist” economy, a free market – although not free to the extent of laissez faire, and all the rest.  However, the nation state is the ultimate arbiter based on the good of the people; the economy is not the ultimate arbiter; when national-racial-cultural issues demand economic concessions than that is what happens, and not the opposite.  In Political Socialism the Economy is the servant of Nation and People, not vice versa. Political Socialism does oppose great differences in wealth in the population, as that erodes the organic solidarity of Nation and People, and, certainly for those wealthy who betray Nation and People, things will not go well for them in a Political Socialist state.  They can expect their assets seized, and they, if not executed, would serve as manual laborers somewhere, in the most meek and modest circumstances possible.  They will no longer be Master; the era of Economic Man will come to an end.  Needless to say though, class warfare as promoted by Economic Socialists also, to an equal extent to Unrestrained Capitalism, erodes the organic solidarity required of any great people, and so those who promote that Marxist creed will find things not going well for them either.

The Movement Tripod

Tripod of victory.

Recently, I criticized Walker’s pro-mainstreaming Counter-Currents piece on populism. There’s a saying: don’t criticize unless you provide a solution, a better way of doing things, an alternative. Therefore, I’ll present my “triangle of activism’ that provides a balanced platform for achieving our goals.  Note that Walker’s meme is actually one the points of the triangle, one of the legs of the tripod.  My objection to Walker’s thesis is that he apparently views it as the primary, or sole, approach we should take, a major strategic approach, while in actuality it should be only one component – and that the least important – of an integrated revolutionary Movement.  

Why a triangle?

Soviet defector V. Rezun has written of the triangular structure of the Soviet system – Party, Army, KGB – being a source and stability (*):

A triangle is the strongest and most rigid geometric figure. If the planks of a door which you have knocked together begin to warp, nail another plank diagonally across them. This will divide your rectangular construction into two triangles and the door will then have the necessary stability. 

The triangle has been used in engineering for a very long time. Look at the Eiffel tower, at the metal framework of the airship Hindenburg, or just at any railway bridge, and you will see that each of these is an amalgamation of thousands of triangles, which give the structure rigidity and stability. 

The triangle is strong and stable, not only in engineering but in politics, too. Political systems based on division of power and on the interplay of three balancing forces have been the most stable throughout history.

Multiculturalism is destroying the American system, also put on a tripartite structure of Federal, Legislative, and Judicial, but that structure nevertheless also has demonstrate remarkable staying power overtime.

I propose the following Movement tripod:

1. The Elite: this is the hardcore vanguardist (avant-garde) element that constitutes the most important part of the triangle, the focal leg of the tripod, and the top of the pyramid.  This element is not so much concerned with policy positions and such details, but instead provides leadership, unalterable fundamental principles, moral and spiritual guidance, commitment and discipline, and the impetus for creation of the New Man and raciocultural renewal.  As a model for what this Elite should be like: Codreanu’s Legion.

2. The Movement: this is also vanguardist, but not the hardcore Elite; the Movement constitutes the shock troops, the main group of political soldiers who implement the principles and objectives set forth by the Elite.  It is at this level that policy positions and other details are formulated, guided by the Elite’s hardcore principles; it is this level that provides the human material for the Elites, it is this level that overlaps both the higher Elite level and the lower Mass level with respect to actualizing the “mass movement” aspects of the endeavor.  If Der Movement was to be reconstructed sanely, it would serve as the basis for this level – but as it currently exists Der Movement cannot constitute any part of this tripod structure.

3. The Mass: this is what Walker talks about, this is the mainstreaming, populist leg of the tripod, that reaches out to the people, engages in mass politics, recruits for the Movement, and makes the tactical alliances and compromises without affecting the strategic goals and ideological fervor of the Elites and the Movement.

Each of these three focal points serves a purpose. Each is necessary. Each is incomplete without the other two. But they are not of equal importance.  In biological terms, the Elite is akin to the stem cells of the overall Movement.  If it exists and thrives, it can over time efficiently reconstitute the other two parts of the system.  However, if the stem cells are lost, the organism’s only hope for survival is for some differentiated cells to dedifferentiate and reform the stem cell pool.  That’s a tricky process; here one would have to hope that the Movement leg of the tripod could somehow generate a new Elite- but even so there’s the chance that core principles would become “mutated” and who knows what make take its place. The Elite is of prime importance, but without the Movement, the Elite is like a head with no body, and the Mass  - the people – are ultimately what the Elite (and Movement) want to save (or at least the better parts of them). The Mass without the Elite and the Movement is just an atomized herd, and the Movement without the Elite is a headless body, and the Movement without the Mass loses its purpose.

Just like the cells of the body, each plays a role.  None should proliferate out of control – cancer – imperiling the entire body.  Walker’s thesis is just this type of cancer.

*Yes, the Soviet Union collapsed – but that was due to the unworkable stupidity of Marxism and the fact that – as Yockey noted – “rationalist” (and Jewish) Marxism is alien to the “Russian soul” – Russia making up the core of the old USSR.  The System as such was stable, but the underlying foundation it was built on was nonsense and in the end no one cared enough about it to stick with it when it crumbled.  Considering how flawed the Marxist foundation was, the fact that the Soviet system lasted three quarters of a century, surviving Stalin, World War II, and several decades of Cold War, is evidence supporting Rezun’s thesis.