HQ and JQ

Hitler Question and Jewish Question.

There are some people on the Dissident Right, Liddell for example, who critique Der Movement’s Hitler worship as well as its fixation on the Jews.  To some extent, I believe that these critics have a point, although they go too far in the other direction. Let us consider together.  First, we will look at the Hitler Question (HQ) and then at the Jewish Question (JQ).

I agree that Der Movement’s worship of Hitler – and of Germanism in general – has been ludicrous, hence the name “Der Movement” to mock the “movement’s” Germanic obsessions. From a pure “optics” standpoint, voluntarily bringing up Hitler every five minutes is obviously a mistake. What about from the perspective of historical and ideological analysis?  There were many positives about National Socialism – the organic solidarity of the ethny in a race-based state, the use of state power to further bioracial objectives, the collectivist view of putting the well-being of the ethny ahead of individualist agendas, a more egalitarian class structure that corrects some defects of capitalism, etc. But Hitler also added to this ideology Germanic militarism and expansionism, Nordicism, and other bizarre racial theories that were irrational (e.g., viewing similar ethnies as almost disjunctive species – Germans vs. Slavs as a prime example), an anti-Semitism that – while justified – likely went a bit too far, and other defective tangents.  It is primarily because of Hitler than the Fascist International idea died during the 1930s. However, it must be admitted that from a purely domestic German perspective, the Hitler regime was a resounding success (even if flawed). The major problem was with foreign policy, the Nazi regime’s dealings with the outside world.  Thus, we got WWII and all of the evils to the White race that came as a result of that war. If one reads Irving’s Hitler’s War – and Irving cannot reasonably be accused of anti-Hitler bias – it is clear that the war was not necessary.  It was in fact Hitler’s war; there were inflection points at which war could have been avoided.  For example, if Hitler had stopped with expansion after the Munich agreement, then war was not inevitable, at least not the world war that ensued.

The only real defense in favor of Hitler’s foreign policy is the hypothesis that the USSR, if left unmolested, would have eventually successfully conquered continental Europe, and that the UK and the leftist FDR regime, both infested with communist agents and sympathizers, would have done nothing about it, or would have failed to reverse the conquest even if they had tried.  Thus, this line of reasoning goes, Hitler’s invasion of the USSR disrupted Stalin’s plans, resulting in the USSR only grabbing the less developed eastern half of the continent, and making Western resistance to the Soviet Union possible. This theory, by extension, would claim that all of Hitler’s other military actions were in preparation for his move east and thus all needs to be viewed through the prism of disrupting Soviet plans.

Now, this hypothesis is not completely implausible and therefore my condemnation of Hitler’s foreign policy is not absolute. The USSR was a threat and one that the “Western democracies” for various reasons did not seem to take seriously. However, there are three flaws with this excuse for Hitler’s actions.  First, it counter-balances a hypothetical possibility against the actual reality of the catastrophe that did occur because of Hitler’s war. Second, Hitler’s war aims were not to disrupt a Soviet conquest of Europe, but to conquer living space in the east and reduce the native Slavs to a lowly helot class.  Further, the French campaign cannot be said to be purely for “setting the stage for the east;” Hitler has other fish to fry there. Third, Hitler has other possible strategies to forestall a Soviet conquest of Europe even if we assume that was his aim. He could have joined with Mussolini to build a “Fascist International” in Europe, promoting fascist movements taking power, combined with judicious anti-Soviet alliances with states like Poland (instead of allying with the USSR to carve up Poland).  An agreement with the UK would have been possible if Hitler was of a different temperament, and if he was not a Germanic hegemonist bent on conquest. This is all besides Suvorov’s “Icebreaker” theory that Stalin wanted to use Hitler as a battering ram to weaken the West before a Soviet invasion, with the German invasion of the USSR coming as an unpleasant surprise.  According to this thesis, much of Hitler’s foreign policy moves – with the obvious exception of the invasion of the USSR itself – were actually furthering long-term Soviet objectives. All in all, I am not convinced that Hitler’s war was necessary. However, going back to domestic policy and how this ties in with international affairs; to the extent that Hitler prevented Germany from going communist on its own, and then allying with the USSR to carve up the West under the banner of Marxism, Adolf can be given credit there.  But this does not excuse German militarism and aggression against other Europeans.

All in all, Hitler worship is a mistake. That does not mean we need to jump on the anti-Hitler liberal democratic bandwagon. Hitler should be looked at objectively, with one eye on “what was his effect on White interests?” and the other on “optics.” I am not going to blindly denounce Hitler just as I will not blindly praise him – and the same goes for any other leader or personage.  For example, I am not going to denounce people like Yockey or Codreanu, who I admire, warts and all, just for the sake of “optics” and the same goes for Mussolini and for Fascism in general.  

What about the Jews? I stand by my long-standing assertion that the Jews have been necessary but not sufficient for White decline. Without the Jewish contribution, things would not have got so bad so fast; thus, Jews have played an integral role in these problems. However, the Jews alone did not cause the problems; instead, with unerring focus and great skill they manipulated underlying White weaknesses and various perfidious trends. Think of Jews as akin to an enzyme catalyzing a slow and initially unfavorable reaction.  Without the enzymatic catalysis the reaction may not occur at all or may occur very slowly (and definitely reversibly). In the presence of the enzymatic catalysis, the reaction quickly and efficiently proceeds to completion. However, the enzyme alone can do nothing, it must have all of the reaction components in order to work; the enzyme must have a substrate to work upon. The substrates were all there – High Truster love of Coloreds and a Racial Proximity Theory hostility to other Whites coupled to the aforementioned love of Coloreds, lower ethnocentrism among Whites, High Truster conformity and shame culture, swarthoid ineptness that left them unable to resist High Trust liberalism and insufficient ethnocentrism among the swarthoids themselves, a tendency of Whites to think in terms of objective abstractions leading to bizarre outcomes such as favoring universalist morality and economic productivity over racial self-interest, hyper-rational empiricism that for some strange reason eschews the rational empiricism of ethnic genetic interests, tendencies toward contrarian individualism in some Whites, modernity and its effects on sex relations and White reproduction, etc. But these tendencies have been around for a long time and while they have done much damage, they did not become an existential threat to White existence until malicious Jews leveraged these tendencies to undermine the foundations upon which European Man and Western Civilization rested. In this sense, I agree with MacDonald, and Cofnas and supporters fail in their counter-arguments, particularly since “right-wing Jews” are often destructive as well. Look at the antics of, e.g., Hart (multiracial “White separatist state) and Weissberg (racial status quo) at Amren. There is always the innate Jewish urge to act against White interests, even when acting in the context of a “White advocacy” group.

So, the Jew obsessives are wrong but the critics of the Jew obsessives are wrong as well. Being necessary for evil is all that is required for substantial blame, even if the subject of the blame is not sufficient for causing the evil. But ignoring the underlying substrate is as wrong as ignoring the catalyst. Indeed, even if all Jews were to disappear, the reaction has been catalyzed sufficiently that it can continue to move toward completion; in addition, alternative catalysts (SJW Whites, South Asians) have emerged who have sufficient memetic skills to catalyze White self-destruction sans Jews.

In summary: It is true that Der Movement goes too far with the Hitler worship; the constant adulation and excuse-making should stop. On the other hand, positive aspects of National Socialism and the broader ideology of Fascism should be discussed in a reasonable manner. The so-called Jewish question should be also discussed; people shouldn’t feel that if they mention it then they will be cast into ideological oblivion. However, discussion of the JQ should be done in a rational and balanced manner, not with a foaming-at-the-mouth obsessive fixation. Not everything is the fault of Jews, there is enough to legitimately blame them for without going to excessive extremes.

Balance in all of these things is important.

I can write more on this issue, but considering the Pareto Principle I believe that I have already covered the core 80% of the argument and that is sufficient.  The HQ and JQ critics are more right than wrong but they go too far. They also fail to provide any sort of comprehensive alternative approach to activism (other than “big tent” – that I have critiqued and will likely do so again) and any overarching vision for the future.

Russia, Ukraine, and America

Some thoughts.

I am going to consider this situation in its broadest terms, without getting sidelined with petty details.

Both America and Russia are to blame for the degeneration of relations over the past 20-25 years, and the lost opportunity to forge a real, positive, friendly working relationship between the two nations, a lost opportunity that is a world historical tragedy. We must admit that America is more to blame for this than is Russia. America made promises to the end-stage USSR and to Russia, understandings both direct and indirect, and Russia was betrayed by American mendacity. NATO was not to be expanded eastward. There was the understanding that NATO would no longer be defined as an anti-Russian alliance, that America would not exploit Russia’s post-USSR weakness, that Russia would be a genuine partner and would not be economically pillaged. There was also the understanding that America would not interfere with the internal politics of Russia or in Russia’s sphere of influence. All of these promises and understandings were broken and betrayed. Russia has legitimate grievances with respect to this. America also made promises to Ukraine, to guarantee Ukrainian territorial sovereignty and integrity in exchange for them giving up the nuclear weapons on their territory (a big mistake on Ukraine’s part and a lesson to other nations with respect to these weapons).

Russia is not guiltless, however. Just as there have been elements in the American Establishment wanting to rekindle the Cold War, similar elements exist in Russia as well. There are those in Russia who lament the break-up of the USSR and wish to reverse this to the extent possible.  Russia must be willfully ignorant if they fail to realize that the anti-Russian hostility in America comes from the Jewish power structure (both Neocon Jewboys and the Jewish Left) who have an undying ethnic animus against Russians (and against Ukrainians and against Slavs in general), coupled to their junior partners of the Anglo-American elites. The American people themselves are not anti-Russian. Trump, I believe, genuinely desired better relations with Russia, but to the extent Russia interfered with the 2016 election, and gave ammunition to anti-Russian forces in America, they sabotaged that possibility (one wonders if anti-American elements in Russia did that intentionally). Russian antics in targeting dissidents and defectors in the UK and their activities vs. Ukraine obviously do not inspire confidence abroad.

Russia has legitimate interests in keeping Ukraine out of NATO.  Ukraine, with good reasons to fear Russia, has equally legitimate reasons to want to be in NATO (although I’m skeptical how much support Ukraine would get even then). How these seemingly intractable set of interests could be resolved is something beyond the scope of this essay, but if Salterian governments were in charge of both nations, it could be worked out. In the current circumstances, a reasonable accommodation that meets the interests of both parties does not seem likely.  Ukraine’s unfortunate history in the 20th century, which informs in part its attitude toward Russia, is in large part due to Jewish crimes, just as Russia’s equally unfortunate history is. The Ukrainians seem as willfully ignorant, or even more so, about this than are the Russians, even to the point of electing Jews to rule over them. On the other hand, one can argue that both peoples know the score, but are just being pragmatic, given the realities of Jewish power and the need to try to leverage that power in their national interests. If so, they still don’t have a real understanding, as, in the end, Jews care only about themselves and hate both Russians and Ukrainians, and so no good will ultimately come from Slavs kowtowing to Jews.

Odds and Ends, 5/1/21

In der news.

Happy May Day!

Onanism material for the HBDers.

See this.  Tucker Carlson asks – where are the Republicans? Good question.  Another good question is – where is Trump?  Brief comments about “unfairness,” and then lapsing again into torpid inactivity? Where is the sincere man of genuine greatness these days?  He seems real quiet, even when his supporters are languishing in solitary confinement being beaten by guards, or when his lawyer and buddy Rudy is raided by the feds. I suppose those golf games and those Big Macs are mightily distracting, eh? Oh, the sincerity!  Oh, the greatness!  The God Emperor!  What a fraud.

See this. Ignore the milksop aspects of that piece and instead concentrate on the growing opportunities for democratic multiculturalism for Whites opposing the “woke” agenda, and the opportunities of a prudent, real movement to leverage these sociopolitical currents to infiltrate the mainstream.

Will the HBDers report on this story?  Perhaps Engelman can write an Amren article about it?

A sensible Amren comment:

American Tax Payer 

A Third World Alien with an English Name…. I reckon I’m not surprised since gregory hood is a “big tent”, come one, come all, kind of “politician”. You know, the exact same kind of “politicians” whom have turned America into a third world cesspool with that exact same kind of “big tent” mentality.

Laugh at this.

Not that there’s anything wrong with quoting Evola, in the proper context.

Come on, now. Evola was not only not White, he wasn’t even human.  Despise the Afrowop!

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.