Print this post Print this post

The Dictates of Survival

georgebellowsstagatsharkeys1909

George Bellows, “Stag at Sharkey’s,” 1909

1,642 words

To oppose the extermination of the white race is not, objectively speaking, an outlandish position. It is quite conservative, even consistent with the tenets of mainstream conservation biology.

More importantly, it is moral. Those perpetrating genocide stand self-condemned: the purposeful destruction of the white race is a crime against humanity under the Left’s own laws.

But, of course, there is always a huge gulf between what such people say, or even enshrine into law, and what they really believe and do.

What Would Jews Do?

If whites (or anyone else) did to Jews what they and the System are doing to whites, the violence of their reaction would, by now, have been staggering. Jews would have employed weapons of mass destruction, assassinated members of the ruling class, and carried out horrible massacres in retaliation.

In 2008 the Jewish Daily Forward published an opinion piece by Yehezkel Dror entitled “When Survival of the Jewish People Is at Stake, There’s No Place for Morals” that offers whites, the world’s most endangered species, food for thought. It articulates the fundamental values of the globalist ruling class, Jewish and non-Jewish, on the question of ethnic rights for Jews.

The Austrian-born Dror is a retired Israeli professor of political science. He was educated at Harvard University and Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he subsequently taught. He was a consultant to the Israeli government on policy-making and planning, founded the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, and served as a senior staff member of the RAND Corporation, an Establishment US think tank funded by the US government, corporations, universities, and wealthy individuals.

In 2005 Dror won the Israel Prize, his nation’s highest honor. It is awarded annually to recipients who display excellence in their fields or contribute strongly to Israeli culture or the Jewish state.

In other words, Yehezkel Dror has impeccable Jewish—and therefore Establishment—credentials.

The November 1, 1936 magazine section of The Forward.

The November 1, 1936 magazine section of The Forward.

Dror’s article was published in the Left-wing, equally Establishmentarian, English- and Yiddish-language Jewish Daily Forward of New York City.

The article is significant not only for the psychology it reveals, but for its militant insistence that Jews have a right to exist, and to utilize any means necessary to insure their survival.

There is no reason why this philosophy should not apply equally to a genuinely threatened people—namely, our own.

Unfortunately, Dror mixes unabashedly chauvinist arguments with generous helpings of moral and intellectual dishonesty.

For example, he implies that Jews are presently endangered, which they are not. Jews are far and away the most powerful people on earth, as even the most casual observer of politics and culture knows.

Dror further conflates the state of Israel with Jews. He does this because although Jews are not in danger, Israel in its present form may well be nonviable.

Invoking the persecution myth, he claims Jews “have been regularly persecuted for 2,000 years.” This, he thinks, confers the “the moral right and even duty” “in terms of distributive justice” (?), to kill “if this is essential for assuring existence—even at the cost of other values and to other people.”

This “duty to kill” is rendered “all the more compelling” by . . . naturally, the Holocaust . . . which was “supported directly and indirectly, or at least not prevented,” by “large parts of the civilized world.”

“There are, of course, limits,” he purports to believe—”nothing can justify initiating genocide.”

Considering the Jewish role in Communism, and the contemporary demonization, oppression, dispossession, and replacement of the white race, this ruse is beneath contempt. Dror hypocritically says that “being killed and destroyed is better than” transgressing the “absolute and total norm” forbidding genocide.

No one in globalist or Jewish circles believes this; their behavior flatly contradicts it.

Following is the gist of Dror’s beliefs about Jewish survival. The ideas are far more applicable to a truly endangered people than they are to an all-powerful ruling elite, especially when the victims’ oppression and physical annihilation is supported directly and indirectly, or at least not prevented, by large parts of the civilized world.

The Morality of Survival

“There is little disagreement,” Dror informs Forward readers, “that every Jewish leader, organization, community and individual has a duty to help ensure the continuity of the Jewish people.”

Replace “Jewish people” with “white people” and no one in academia, media, or government, least of all Jews, would approve of the statement—including those who are biologically (i.e., nominally) white. Anyone who thought differently would have been prevented from attaining authority in the first place, or removed from power later. This is an iron law of elite socialization.

Physical existence must come first. No matter how moral a society aspires to be, physical existence must take precedent [sic].

This is a basic point too often lost sight of by whites. The physical existence of a people is the first order of business. Ultimately, a healthy, vibrant culture is necessary to insure the survival of future generations. Nevertheless, the inescapable fact is that biological reproduction must occur; like must engender like.

“When the requirements of existence conflict with other values, realpolitik should be given priority,” including “the necessity of maintaining distinctions between ‘us’ and ‘others’ in order to limit assimilation, this imperative ought to guide policymakers.”

Regrettably, human history refutes the idealistic claim that in order to exist for long, a state, society or people has to be moral. Given the foreseeable realities of the 21st century and beyond, harsh choices are unavoidable, with requirements of existence often contradicting other important values.

Some might argue that putting existence first may be counter-productive in terms of existence itself, because what may be regarded as immoral action can undermine external and internal support essential for existence. However, the calculus of realpolitik gives primacy to existence, leaving limited room for ethical considerations.

Weigh carefully what he’s saying, and think about it from a white perspective.

The Jewish people ought not be captivated by political correctness and other thinking-repressing fashions. . . . The Jewish people must give primacy to existence.

The overall issue is whether the imperative for the Jewish people to exist is a categorical one overriding nearly all other values, or one among many imperatives of similar standing. I would argue that the imperative to assure existence is of overriding moral weight.

The Jewish people has an inherent right to exist, just as any other people or civilization.

More dishonesty. Globalist elites and Jews do not think whites have a right to exist, and are doing everything in their considerable power to insure that very soon we do not. But collective existence is our right, not something to be bestowed or taken away at the whim of any government, Left-wing ideologue, or Jew.

Dror offers another justification: “There is a good chance that we will continue to make much-needed ethical contributions to humanity. However, in order to do so we require a stable existence.”

I make no comment about the Jews’ alleged “ethical contributions to humanity,” because there are none. Dror might better have said “some scientific, intellectual, financial, or entertainment contributions.” Nevertheless, his argument is appropriate if applied to whites instead.

“The Jewish people should give much more weight to the imperative to assure existence than to other values. Assuring the existence of the Jewish people, including a Jewish State of Israel, should be valued as a top priority.”

Jewish leaders should support harsh measures against terrorists [“terrorists”—this is a propaganda term] who potentially [potentially!] endanger Jews, even at the cost of human rights and humanitarian law [here he advocates law-breaking, disobeying the government]. And if the threat [“threat”—not actions—as defined by Jews] is sufficiently grave, the use of weapons of mass destruction by Israel would be justified if likely to be necessary for assuring the state’s survival, the bitter price of large number [sic] of killed innocent civilians notwithstanding.

That’s quite a statement in view of the fact that Jews really do mean it: “. . . large numbers of killed innocent civilians notwithstanding.”

At the end of the day there is no way around the tough and painful practical implications of prioritizing existence as an overriding moral norm [emphasis added] over being moral in other respects. When important for existence, violating the rights of others should be accepted, with regret but with determination. Support or condemnation of various countries and their policies should be decided upon primarily in light of probable consequences for the existence of the Jewish people.

In short, the imperatives of existence should be given priority over other concerns—however important they may be—including liberal and humanitarian values [and] support for human rights. . . . Given present and foreseeable realities, assuring existence must come first.

Everything Establishment spokesman Yehezkel Dror says in New York City’s Leftist Jewish Daily Forward is far more applicable to whites everywhere on earth than it is to Jews. Dror even concedes that every people or civilization has a right to exist—implicitly on the same terms he outlines for Jews.

Many Jews would no doubt disagree with Dror’s editorial as written.

That is primarily because Dror is really calling for extreme violence and lawlessness on behalf of Israel, not Jews. And Jewish dissidents no longer blindly subscribe to the fraudulent equivalence between the Jewish people and Israel that Dror is unquestionably asserting. Indeed, some members of the tribe are beginning to suspect that present-day Israel may no longer be “good for the Jews.” Israel’s behavior makes it increasingly difficult for many people to successfully lie to themselves or others about the Jews’ true colors.

Even so, if the Jews’ backs really were pushed to the wall the way whites’ are, there is no question they would behave exactly as Dror advocates, no matter how much death and suffering it entailed for others.

Whites, who truly are endangered, should begin thinking more like Dror and the Jews—and soon.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

43 Comments

  1. Lew
    Posted April 2, 2013 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Great commentary all around by Daybreaker.

    We have a bad habit of defining our in-groups and out-groups every way but correctly

    Yes.

    Another persistent bad habit: the reluctance of wealthy whites to pay the white working man a decent family wage, one on which he can reasonably raise the next generation

    Yes. I am coming to view non-whites as a side show myself. The war that matters is against elite Whites and Jews. The spiritual / political war is a war for the hearts and minds of other whites.

    Rightists probably need to pay more attention to the economic/class war of wealthy whites on everyone else. The class war is as important as the ethnic and cultural war.

    Economic opportunity = family opportunity.

    No economic opportunity = no family opportunity; no physical reproduction; no repairing the culture; no implementing a new vision for life based on anti-modern principles.

    As usual, CC is on the cutting edge by making forays into economic topics and integrating them into the political and cultural discussion.

  2. Daybreaker
    Posted April 2, 2013 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    I think a lot of pro-white whites, in their hearts, would like to resolve our conflict in the spirit of Ivanhoe.

    If you look at the methods by which organizations like the $PLC and the ADL suppress open dissent from policies that amount to white genocide, honor and chivalry have nothing to do with it.

    We need to get adjusted to that. How we would prefer things doesn’t matter. What matters is what works.

  3. Andrew Hamilton
    Posted April 1, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    There is another point I should have made in the article, but did not.

    A common theme among conservatives, right-wingers, and many white nationalists is that Jews must be embraced as part of our enterprise—typically, in fact, as leaders and directors of it, from whom rank-and-file whites are expected to take guidance. Buckley and the libertarians did this.

    Conservatives often invoke the term “Judeo-Christian” in this regard. Although philo-Semites and anti-anti-Semites within white nationalism typically do not, their followers are nevertheless expected to embrace Jews as “white,” and somehow part and parcel of Western civilization.

    White speech critical of Jews or the Holocaust is even censored, while Jewish criticism of whites and Christianity is permitted. Some groups, such as the Sweden Democrats, at least take the next logical step and embrace other non-whites as well (save, perhaps, for Muslims), as long as they live within the nation’s borders and support its “culture.”

    I’m not endorsing this, but it’s the only position that makes sense once you’ve accepted Jews.

    But Dror does not reciprocate. He cares only about the survival of the Jewish people. He expresses no duty toward, or concern for, whites, Western civilization, Christendom, or anything remotely of that nature.

    We are responsible for the Holocaust and 2,000 years of Jewish suffering—that’s all. The fact that we died by the millions to pull the Jews’ bacon from the fire in WWII, destroyed much of Europe in the process, kept Israel alive, and enabled the Jews to rise to world power, counts for nothing.

    All that matters is that Jews—not whites, not “Europeans,” not “Jews and Christians,” not the West—recognize rising powers such as China, or Hispanics, and make alliances with them to insure the Jews’ future.

    Though for the Jews only Jews count, many white nationalists insist that Jews be accepted as “us” . . . while simultaneously implicitly acknowledging that they’re somehow forever distinct—and better.

    • Daybreaker
      Posted April 2, 2013 at 4:11 am | Permalink

      Right. Correctly defining who is “us” is vital. It’s the other half of the vital question, “who is the enemy?”

      (To which I think the correct answer is “people who look like us but have no loyalty to us”. Wealthy and powerful whites supporting non-white mass immigration and other anti-white policies are so destructive that they should be defined as second-to-none foes and not seen indulgently as mere “dupes”.)

      In this conflict over whether white people continue to exist – a defensive struggle for survival, from our point of view – “we” cannot include people with strongly conflicting group interests.

      Jews have group interests (and sentiments), in strong conflict with any common interests we may think they have with white non-Jews.

      We know this, because “Judeo-Christian” civilization is killing us with mass immigration and forced integration (plus cultural corruption and financial exploitation).

      I think Kevin MacDonald is dead on the mark in theorizing this, but really it shouldn’t need theorizing. We already have the results of including Jews in the in-group. It leads to destruction.

  4. Anonymous
    Posted April 1, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
  5. Jaego
    Posted April 1, 2013 at 3:58 am | Permalink

    Lew:

    Good points. Maybe this code began with the Ancient Germans? There was a famous battle between the Saxons and the Vikings. The Vikings were trapped too close to the Sea and asked for space to fight. The Saxons complied and the Vikings defeated them, wiping them out. Many Saxons said the King had been wrong to grant the Viking request. Add to this Christianity and now Political Correctness and the witch’s brew was made.

    • Lew
      Posted April 1, 2013 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      Jeago,

      I thought about Christianity as the source problem, but I’m not sure that makes sense either mainly because of Christian success in repelling Muslim invasions in the distant past — maybe not ancient or ancestral periods but still a long time ago. If the pathology took root in later iterations of Christianity, then that would point to something getting into the white mental landscape fairly recently and maybe not even something intrinsic to Christianity. The logical suspect for me is secular liberal ideas worming their way into the water table.

      White Republican,

      Yes, I thought of that as soon as I hit the Post button. Opps. Jews ultimately outlasted the Romans. They’ve outlasted everyone. Clearly a far more subtle and dangerous enemy than enemies who field armies. All the more reason not to put the idea our there that using tactics and methods that work contradict white principles.

      • Jaego
        Posted April 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

        They fought Islam as a religion and foreign culture, not as an alien Race. In any case, you are right: Christianity was much healthier way back. Christ said go and out and teach all men – not bring all men to you. The thought of flooding your land with aliens never occurred to anyone in the Age. But it had been done by both the Romans, Babylonians and Persians before them to weaken subject peoples or as a natural result of economic forces. Thus modern Globalism is using ancient techniques of social destruction under the guise of humanitarianism. And Christianity has failed the test by not only not standing up for the West, but worse, by helping the aliens come here. Indeed for many, diversity, ecology, and globalism have replaced Christ as the object of their worship.

    • Matt Strictland
      Posted April 1, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

      Overestimating your opponents honor is a common problem, witness what happended to Wat Tyler .

      Its related to game theory actually, if you act as if no one has honor, you’ll be safer from betrayal but cooperation becomes nearly impossible and war becomes far more common and bloody since everyone enegages in atrocities first out. Also there are effects on the psycology of your own men. Honor has value in and of itself.

      Thus its often sounder policy to curse the occasional sudden but inevitable betrayal in exchange for the other benefits.

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted April 1, 2013 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      The concept or practice of a code of honor and rules of combat does not originate with the Germans. It is not only a typical Indo-European practice, but exists in the history of a large variety of other peoples in the world. And, of course, adhering to basic rules of combat and honor never stopped anyone, especially not the Germanic and Viking tribes, from being ruthless and effective in defeating their opponents, the example of the Saxon vs. Vikings battle notwithstanding. Neither did Christianity in many cases. The kind of logic you are using is apparently not leading anywhere worthwhile.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted April 1, 2013 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

        The key to determining the applicability of a moral code in a competitive context, particularly one like war, in which defeat can lead to annihilation, is: reciprocity. One can reduce the costs of war if one can subject it to rules that limit its destructiveness. But it only works if both sides do it. If one side follows the rules of war while the other side breaks them, then the good side is at a systematic disadvantage. Europeans knew this. They knew that the rules of war only applied if the enemy reciprocated. Thus they did not apply them when dealing with non-European savages or against revolutionaries or terrorists or partisans.

        See my essay on Carl Schmitt’s Theory of the Partisan: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/07/the-political-soldier-carl-schmitts-theory-of-the-partisan/

        When dealing with Jews, we have to always recognize that they do not regard us, or any non-Jews, as moral equals. There is one set of rules for them, another for outsiders. So we have to reciprocate that position or we are at a systematic disadvantage in every dealing.

        See Mike Polignano’s “Taking Our Own Side”: http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/taking-our-own-side-2/

        The greatest folly of whites is to selfishly prize individual moral perfection over group survival. We need more men who are willing, like Frodo, to save the Shire, even if it is not for themselves, even if it turns them into monsters who are not able to live in the perfected world they work to create for our people. That is the highest form of sacrifice, whereas gentleman losers are the lowest form of selfishness and self-indulgence.

      • Jaego
        Posted April 2, 2013 at 1:23 am | Permalink

        Wrong. As already stated, General Robert E Lee refused to send Raiders around the Northern Line to spread terror deep into the North. It was entirely feasible as he had troops adept at raiding and living off the land. He said we will win or lose as Gentlemen. And of course, the North did not reciprocate his reserve and respect. So this kind of thinking and feeling has apparently been growing in the last few centuries, even though it was present in the Ancient Germans but not or at least much less so in the Greeks and Romans.

        The Jewish author Maurice Samuel made much of this in his book, “You Gentiles”, saying that Gentiles saw life as a game or a sport whereas the Jews took life seriously and fought for keeps.

      • Daybreaker
        Posted April 2, 2013 at 5:03 am | Permalink

        Greg Johnson: “The greatest folly of whites is to selfishly prize individual moral perfection over group survival.”

        Zeal for white survival is necessary. The fight for whites to have a future is the supreme moral challenge of our age. And you’re right: the survival of the entire race can’t be held hostage to the moral status-striving of individuals. (Especially when “moral purity” is so often expressed as smug passivity toward issues that academia and the mass media make “icky”.)

        But we have other bad habits besides excessive love of individual moral status.

        We have a bad habit of defining our in-groups and out-groups every way but correctly. White guys want to define the enemy as white, and gain some sort of personal status in intra-white conflict, even if symbolic. The enemy is damn Yankees, it’s heathens and pagans, it’s Catholics, it’s Protestants, it’s vulgar Americans, it’s effete Europeans, and so on indefinitely. It’s hardly ever non-whites that you won’t get any social status points or moral credit for fighting, even if the fight is life and death for entire white communities.

        It’s rare in history to find white people fighting explicitly for white people as such. But I think that’s what we should always fight for.

        Another persistent bad habit: the reluctance of wealthy whites to pay the white working man a decent family wage, one on which he can reasonably raise the next generation. Over and over it seems a better idea to the wealthy to reduce honest white workers and farmers to debt-slavery or worse, and to support the mass importation of slave labor, including non-white labor. Over and over they do this, and over and over it results in racial disaster for whites, with Haiti being the outstanding example.

        A habit that repeatedly results in white genocide is hard to top for “the worst thing white people do”.

        (I can’t forgive this. That’s why I define anti-white wealthy, powerful whites as second-to-none enemies.)

  6. Daybreaker
    Posted March 30, 2013 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    I agree with Kevin MacDonald (who takes a Darwinian rather than a pure idealist view) that it is vital to resist hostile Jewish pressure and that in doing so one has to imitate the Jewish way to some extent, as collective strategies are overwhelmingly effective against individual strategies. In the face of a hostile collective, treating everyone as an individual is unadaptive.

    When it comes to the survival of the white race it doesn’t matter if it’s natural for us to act in a more collective-minded way or not. The Romans were land animals; they were never natural sailors to the end. But to beat the great Semitic threat of that era, they copied the Punic navy, plank for plank, and suffered the naval disasters that are prone to strike the less expert, and went on to win. We have to act in the same spirit. It’s not what we would rather do or what’s natural for us that matters, but what must be done because it works, as proven by the fact that it’s working for our enemies.

    But the key is to copy “to some extent”. You have to copy the Jewish model to survive, but not too much, or you become a monster too, and there are consequences to that.

    I agree with Kevin MacDonald (again, and as usual) that National Socialism was an attempt to secure German interests through almost point by point imitation of Jewish ways (adapted to Germany’s numbers and circumstances). It was more a clone of Judaism than Christianity had been either early in its history or in the Spanish Inquisition.

    I don’t think Alfred Rosenberg necessarily adopted a fatal frame or went mad or became a monster in taking that approach. His own follies were historically normal. He consistently preferred the more humane path toward his Slavic fellow-“Aryans”; he was just over-ruled by Der Fuhrer, who consistently preferred the inhumane path when it came to Slavs. Probably the final verdict on Alfred Rosenberg (other than the “victors’ justice” of Nuremberg) is that he was over-promoted, a bit like Joseph Bonaparte, King of Spain.

    On that interpretation, cloning Jewish belligerent collectivism as a way to secure the interests of only some whites is not necessarily fatal, in theory.

    But in practice, under Hitler, it definitely was.

    First, his frame was radically wrong. He was not a white nationalist, which is the vital thing; he was a German nationalist. He was no more protective of whites in general than Jews are protective of the interests of Semites in general. He treated the white nations around Germany with the kindness that the Jews bestow on the Palestinians and their other neighbors.

    For the Ukrainians, this meant that having been plunged into mass death by starvation by Bolshevism, instead of being rescued by racially conscious fellow whites, or at least being left alone, they were plunged into hell on Earth again, this time by a second hostile collective made up of pseudo-Jewish genetic Teutons.

    That’s pretty much what I think successful National Socialism under Hitler would have meant for the white world. Instead of there being one implacably hostile collective, with enough admixture of white genes to add to its naturally formidable character, there would have been two such collectives, the second a clone of the first except for having fully German genes and numbers, with all that implied for war, science and technology. Whites around the world would have thought that German National Socialists ought to see them as brothers, being fellow whites, but their hopes would have been dashed.

    One way or another, whether he won or he lost, I think Hitler was going to be a disaster for the whites as a race united for our collective survival, which is what I think we need to be.

    I see wrong frames pervasively today, even in interviews in Counter Currents. A Frenchman sees that France is becoming un-French, so what was his answer? Bretons against all others! Russians see American power as the enemy because it is not their power; they are against hegemony because it is hegemony (and not theirs). That America is no longer ruled by whites in the interest of (at least American) whites but by traitors and non-whites fatally against the interests of all whites doesn’t register, though it ought to be decisive. (I would be all for American hegemony, if it was pro-white, and to hell with the alleged benefits of “multipolarity”.) Everybody wants to fight their fellow whites. Our vital common interest is slighted or ignored.

    That selection of the wrong frame, plus an overly wrathful attitude and various other errors (for instance in the national socialist theory of power and sovereignty, flowing from the top down instead of democratically from the bottom up) is no good. That plus a practically point by point copy of Jewish particularist attitudes, as applied to crucial specific fractions of the white race, is a doomsday device.

    Given that most whites and white nations will never take whiteness as their only important frame of reference, We should unite as much as we can as whites, but we should not imagine that we will ever be united enough to support absolutely maximum hostility, Jewish-style, without it being an occasion for potentially dangerous divisions among groups of whites, particularly white nations which see their interests differently, and for criticism – not just the instrumental and intentionally destructive moral criticism of Jews but serious moral criticism from legitimately idealistic whites.

    We need our more honorable, humane, affectionate, trusting, idealistic and creative sides very much. We need our preference to compete vigorously but within the dictates of sportsmanship and fair play, and our willingness each to be a good loser if it comes to that.

    The alternative is not to be “tough” and so win but to fall to killing each other again and so lose, again and finally, against a united, implacable and by now (due to eugenic Jewish practices and I think the dysgenic fratricidal wars of the whites) genetically superior enemy.

    If we have to lose, let’s not lose as mean, stupid brutes.

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted March 31, 2013 at 10:37 am | Permalink

      I agree with most of what you wrote, but I think you are taking too skewed a view regarding National Socialism. We probably would be better off if the Third Reich won the war even if some peoples would have experienced an unnecessary amount of harm as a result. Although considering the fact that not all National Socialists took the same attitude towards other Europeans, it is still possible that the outcome would have been overall good; it really depended on which figures would achieve more influence later on. Not to mention, by 1944, the Third Reich had practically transformed its official racial views to include other European groups as “equal but different” to Germanics rather than “inferior.” As soon as they saw that their earlier ethnocentric attitude was harming their ability to fight in the war, many of them changed to an extent. Of course, the change came too late (they should not held their unreasonable attitudes in the first place) and it was, for some people, promoted for purely practical reasons. Clearly, National Socialists in this context are not really “Jewish,” but they are a flawed movement and we need to understand their flaws in order to understand why they failed and to learn from that; but they should not dismissed as pure evil because you cannot properly learn from something by taking that view.

      I also want to add, while I respect Kevin MacDonald for formulating a theory of Jewish influence that is reasonable and much closer to reality than typical older theories (which had basically relied on what are commonly called “conspiracy theories”), he makes a lot of claims in terms of other cultural or sociological issues that I regard as inaccurate. One of these is his claim about National Socialism, which in my view is unlikely to have been an imitation of Judaism (although I will grant the possibility that Jewish ideas may have been a minor factor in shaping its character). National Socialism had its roots among older ethnocentric Germans (some of which have been pointed out by Alexander Jacob) who probably did not pick up any of their attitudes from the Jews, and whose ideas National Socialism oftentimes merely manifested in a more extreme form. It should also be remembered that extreme ethnocentrism exists all throughout history and among different peoples and races, so it cannot be regarded in any case as an exclusively Jewish trait. What is important is to make sure that we ourselves don’t make the mistake of being too ethnocentric, which clearly harms a people’s ability to function properly in relation to other peoples.

      • Daybreaker
        Posted April 2, 2013 at 5:59 am | Permalink

        Lucian Tudor, good comment. I still agree with Kevin MacDonald, but good comment.

    • Matt Strictland
      Posted April 1, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

      The last bit about “stupid brutes” rings with me. I’l note though we as a people don’t have to shed our blood or stress our men if we are willing to be cold blooded about it. As the current President has shown, technology is very useful and our fine minds can come up with more and better machines of war. if we came to needing to fight a real war other than a war of choice, why send men to die when you have robots, drones and other much worse things?

      • Daybreaker
        Posted April 2, 2013 at 5:45 am | Permalink

        Eventually, if we improve our circumstances, we often won’t need to fight with violence.

        Our enemies love money. Take it from them, and they’ll howl. (Especially anti-white wealthy whites who live for wealth and have no community, faith or other strong ties to fall back on.)

        They love to use imposed penury as a weapon. Whoever says anything they disapprove of, they try to get put out of work, financially ruined and unable to pay their debts.

        It’s very effective, and we should learn from that.

        We should not think that the business of hounding people, squeezing them for every cent, suing them for more and trying to get them fired from every decent job is mean, low, not our way or dishonorable.

        We should think: this works. We should think that our enemies have earned this a million times over. We should think that this has little to no blowback, compared to violence. (As proven by the fact that our enemies have been doing it to us for a long time with no blowback.)

        We’re in no position to use that weapon now. But it should be our weapon of choice when we can use it.

  7. Fynn
    Posted March 30, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    The hawks in Israel call Iran an “existential threat”, apparently believing if you throw a big enough word out there the rubes will accede to a major blood-letting of Iranians. The Israeli threats against Iran are issued not because Iran poses a military threat to Israel but because Iran is seen as easy prey for Israel and its allies – Iran’s sin is not that it can destroy Israel but that it won’t go along with Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Is this the “existential threat” that Mr. Dror envisions abandoning all ethics over?

  8. Hallstatt
    Posted March 30, 2013 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    “If whites (or anyone else) did to Jews what they and the System are doing to whites, the violence of their reaction would, by now, have been staggering. Jews would have employed weapons of mass destruction, assassinated members of the ruling class, and carried out horrible massacres in retaliation.” Jews in America are more intermarried (with non-Jews) then any other racial group in US, and Israel is a hotbed of Mizhrahi-Ashkenazi miscegenation, so I’m not really sure I agree. The last racially unmixed, non-Orthodox Jews will die way before the last racially un-mixed, non-Amish White.

  9. Deviance
    Posted March 30, 2013 at 3:08 am | Permalink

    Physical existence must come first. No matter how moral a society aspires to be, physical existence must take precedent [sic].

    This was the national-socialist doctrine: from organic matter flows everything else. A simple idea, maybe too simple for the tastes of intellectuals and philosophers — it was indeed a layman’s idea, a revenge of Caesar on Socrates — but which must be judged, like everything on Earth, by its results. Forgetting the war, the results were undeniably positive.

    Unfortunately, in 2013, a lot of race-conscious whites still do not agree with the premise defended by Hamilton or Hitler: Evola followers, for example, as well as traditionalist Christians. For them, morality, honor and other abstract, completely intangible concepts must take precedence over flesh and bones.

    On the comment thread of a recent article, vordringende, in an answer to me, summarized this worldview.

    Aping the immorality of the enemy is not an option because as well as being an insult to our ancestral integrity it undermines any conception of race beyond that of mere matter.

    In other words, a defeat is not a defeat when you have played by the rules and did what you could, and it is better to be vanquished by a ruthless tribe of psychopaths than fight them with their own medicine. I respectfully disagree. It seems to be a refined form of nihilism, since taken to its logical extreme (which is the usual way I gauge ideologies), it supports the position that Nothingness can be better than Being.

    But I would welcome more refined analyses.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Posted March 30, 2013 at 5:34 am | Permalink

      When you are talking about racial survival you are of course talking about physical survival. All other qualities, cultural, moral and spiritual are “superstructures” that cannot exist in this world without its physical basis. Hyper-idealistic Whites sometimes tend to forget that, the hyper-materialistic Jews never forget that. For them material existence is the only value there is.
      We don’t have to “become like the Jews” in order to survive, only a sensible immigration (and remigration) policy is necessary.

      • Lucian Tudor
        Posted March 30, 2013 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

        “All other qualities, cultural, moral and spiritual are “superstructures” that cannot exist in this world without its physical basis. ” (Franklin Ryckaert)

        That is true, yet the physical basis is nearly meaningless with the cultural, moral, and spiritual structures and qualities; flesh is mere flesh without the spirit which gives it higher meaning. Although I just criticized the National Socialists earlier, I should mention that they were highly idealistic, so it is ironic that one should promote taking up their attitudes but at the same time praise “materialism.”

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted March 30, 2013 at 10:27 am | Permalink

      A defense of one’s group against the actions of the enemy does not necessarily have to lead to immoral behavior; it certainly leads to warfare, but that does not imply “immoral.” A nation engaging in war against an aggressor is not committing any immoral act as long as they do not commit actions that are clearly unnecessary and excessive (and thus, go beyond plain warfare [recall here what Schmitt had to say about old European rules of combat]). Concerning the reference in the article to the threat of using weapons of mass destruction against an enemy that poses a sufficient threat to one’s nation, that may seem to imply something more radical than it actually is. I think any nation, including America (which always regards itself as “humanitarian”) would use weapons of mass destruction if it had to for its survival. The same goes for what are considered inhumane acts. Of course, Israel has committed actions against its Arab opponents which are completely unscrupulous and certainly not necessary (no wonder they draw worldwide condemnation). I certainly hope Europeans from them do not end up imitating Israeli behavior because it is really unworthy of us (although I admit I would not stop supporting them even if they did; not because I do not place any value on morality but because I naturally have a duty to support my own people).

      Concerning the National Socialists, everyone here should remember that they themselves engaged in activities in Eastern Europe that were not only immoral, but were so excessive and unjust that some of their own people were disappointed by it. One only has to consider the way they treated Ukrainians in general and the way they exterminated entire villages and towns in some Slavic nations simply out of suspicion that those were harboring some enemy partisans (for example, how do you justify annihilating an entire Belarusian village, women and children included, because you think there may be a few partisans hiding there?). As Alfred Rosenberg pointed out in his “Memoirs”, this kind behavior even harmed the Third Reich’s chances of success because it turned many of the Slavic peoples against them (Rosenberg himself advocated for a fairer treatment of Slavs during the war). Drieu la Rochelle also criticized the way the Third Reich treated the nations they conquered. This is why the National Socialist state does not pose an ideal model for us; frankly speaking, some of their leaders were so ethnocentric that they did not care much what they did to other Europeans; they did not feel any moral duty towards them (mind you, of course, that the thoughts and actions of these leaders should not ever be projected onto Germans in general, who tend to take a different attitude).

    • Lew
      Posted March 31, 2013 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      I’ve noticed this tendency as well among some traditionalists.

      Some of their comments are so long on dogmatism and fuzzy abstractions they remind me of libertarian and Constitution fetishists and ideologues.

      I’d go after them on these points in the interests of beneficial debate and exchange for the white community, but I worry pressing the matter would be disruptive and uncollegial in the context of discussion here at CC.

      That comment by vordringende refects suicidal white pathology at its worst. It would appear the white pathology has a foothold even in the anti-modern right.

      • Jaego
        Posted March 31, 2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

        It’s deep in our psyche, an exalted error perhaps. The South had many troops who could live off the land, like Mosby’s Raiders. They could have spread terror deep into the North. But General Lee said no, saying that we will win or lose as Gentlemen. Later after the horrors of Reconstruction, some regreted their surrender and perhaps their committment to the Code of Gentlemen. So perhaps it comes down to who you are fighting. Is it an inter-cultural or intra-cultural conflict? Can you expect humane treatment if defeated? If not, it is your duty to use any means necessary – as Jefferson indicated when he said survival is the first morality.

        Alas we don’t see our peril and still wont honor the Heroes who do.

      • Lew
        Posted April 1, 2013 at 12:16 am | Permalink

        But is it deep in our psyche? It seems more likely to me some toxic corruption must have entered the white psyche fairly recently.

        You make a good point about Lee. He said the South will fight or lose with honor, and the South lost with honor, and then the Northern leaders conducted a kind of proto-genocide of their cousins across a land mass the size of Western Europe. Not only did the Northern leaders not fight with a shred of honor, they used methods that foreshadowed modern industrial warfare, including the intentional slaughter of non-combatant civilians. It was an escalation of the horrors of war beyond anything previously seen.

        Another example: In Hitler’s War, David Irving mentioned Hitler personally ruled out using poison gas on the Eastern front. It was, apparently, out of a sense of honor having survived a mustard gas attack himself in WW1. Irving mentioned Hitler’s choice put the Germans at a disadvantage, and I think he wrote that choice might have made a difference in the outcome.

        We know for a fact our principal enemies — the Jews — are open to mass slaughter, gulags, terror, assassination and genocide. And we’re supposed to beat these people without using their methods on top of all the other disadvantages we face while not prioritizing physical survival. That ain’t gonna happen.

        I hope vordringende’s comment reflects some kind of severe misunderstanding of traditionalist thought. It was basically a straightforward call for suicide, and that perspective is influential in the best anti-modern intellectual movement going it’s not encouraging.

      • Lew
        Posted April 1, 2013 at 12:46 am | Permalink

        Aping the immorality of the enemy is not an option because as well as being an insult to our ancestral integrity it undermines any conception of race beyond that of mere matter. – vordringende

        There appear to be errors there, both factual and logical.

        Just off the top of my head, going far back into the Western canon, in The Illiad, there is the example of Achilles brutally slaughtering Hector, and then desecrating his corpse by dragging it around Troy. I’ve always sympathized with Hector myself, and when I studied The Illiad in college, the instructor (a classicist and expert on the subject) said most modern readers do — sympathize with the guy sucked into the Trojan war, then slaughtered by a person with a grossly unfair advantage, favor from the Gods; he can’t be killed. That’s a modern outlook, sympathy for the underdog, and maybe evidence of distorted thinking.

        The instructor added that most Greek readers would have not have sympathized with Hector. So if you take the The Illiad as a literary expression of the ancestral or ancient white psyche, which I think should be beyond dispute, it’s clear that the Greeks saw the possibility of values like honor, courage and bravery existing side-by-side with the necessary brutalities of war and conflict.

        Moreover, the “wiley” Odysseus is a master of what — deceit and lies — in the service of Greek victory and survival. They didn’t defeat Troy head on. Odysseus used a lie, usually regarded as highly dishonorable act, to gain entry to the city.

        Just staying within the realm of ancestral western literature and myth, I’m pretty sure I could knock down any claims that deceit and brutality against the enemy are somehow incompatible with ancient white values.

        Those are examples from literature and myth. There are also plenty examples from reality, actual precedents.

        Daybreaker mentioned the punic wars. How did those turnout?

        The Romans had no problem destroying Carthage, literally wiping it off the map, and killing or enslaving every last inhabitant. That’s straight from our own ancestors. The Romans also had no problem using crucifixion the most excruciating form of execution against their enemies.

        Forget the National Socialists. How would the Romans have dealt with Jews?

      • White Republican
        Posted April 1, 2013 at 3:43 am | Permalink

        “Forget the National Socialists. How would the Romans have dealt with Jews?” That’s not a hypothetical question, but a historical one, and the answer is that they failed to take adequate measures against them.

      • Matt Strictland
        Posted April 1, 2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

        Interesting point about the ACW, Jaego.

        I suspect though that if a serious ACW2 should break out the Confederates or those folks like them won’t be so gentle this time out. You can read some of the 3% types and hear a lot about what will happen to cities. The implied threat here being “made to happen” If we are so foolish as to go down this route expect Hotel Rawnda meets San Pedro Sula with hefty side order of 30 Years War served piping hot

      • Alexandros Megas
        Posted April 1, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

        The Roman Republic obliterated Carthage but the Roman Empire didn’t the same with Judea,

      • Lucian Tudor
        Posted April 1, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

        Lew, about the Iliad, one really should wonder why the Greeks thought highly of Odysseus for using deceitful methods while viewing Paris’s killing of Achilles as cowardly? Also, an outsider has a tendency to view things differently than an insider, which is why an outsider can easily sympathize with Hector or some other figure which the Greeks themselves did not; it is not necessarily based on “distorted thinking.” And if we look at other examples in history, we will see that so-called “underdogs” are oftentimes valued as heroes of certain nations (a popular example being William Wallace among the Scots).

        As for the Romans, well, shall we revive the practice of using a massive amount of slaves to perform manual labor since it worked so well for the Roman Empire? The question is obviously sarcastic and rhetorical; the answer for me will always be “no.” Besides, you seem to have missed the entire point of my earlier comments. I never said that people should not use effective tactics in warfare, even “deceitful” ones (after all, even ancient Europeans, who had a code of honor for combat, did not hestitate to use such means at certain times when they felt it was appropriate); I only said that we should not use methods and practices that are completely unacceptable on a moral level or which go far beyond what is necessary.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted April 1, 2013 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

          I think that the vast bulk of the Greeks sympathized with the Trojans. Homer was seen as the great anti-war poet, the man who taught people to see through the eyes of their opponents. I think Lew’s teacher was mistaking Homer for Robert E. Howard. See Dominique Venner’s reading of Homer here at Counter-Currents: http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/homer-the-european-bible-part-1/

      • Lew
        Posted April 1, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

        I’m just recollecting what he said, correctly I think, though it was a long time ago. He said they would have seen Achilles as having favor from the Gods, and for this reason he not Hector would have gotten the sympathy, contrary to the moral intuitions of modern readers. Seriously doubt he would have made a mistake that glaring, reading Homer as a Howard.

        I don’t recall which specific Greeks this instructor was referring to, the Homer poet’s contemporaries, or later Greek generations, or the fictional Greeks Homer was depicting in the poem itself. That distinction probably matters and might explain the different readings regarding sympathy for Hector (he was talking about different Greeks).

      • Lew
        Posted April 1, 2013 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

        Lucian Tudor:

        To clarify, I agree with many of your points. When I wrote those comments, I was thinking about Jaego’s observations and vordringende’s remark quoted above by Deviance.

      • Daybreaker
        Posted April 2, 2013 at 6:53 am | Permalink

        White Republican: ““Forget the National Socialists. How would the Romans have dealt with Jews?” That’s not a hypothetical question, but a historical one, and the answer is that they failed to take adequate measures against them.”

        The Jews were repeatedly expelled from Rome; that is, they snuck back in despite being told firmly and officially they were not welcome.

        Do the chickens keep sneaking into the foxes’ lair, or is it the foxes that keep sneaking into the hen-house?

        That’s the relationship between Jews and non-Jewish whites in a nutshell.

        This is why talk of a Jewish-white alliance is ridiculous. It flies in the face of nature, history and evolutionary psychology.

      • Lew
        Posted April 2, 2013 at 10:54 am | Permalink

        Excellent commentary on Homer by Dominique Venner. Venner mentions a duel between Hector and Ajax that is stopped based on a honor convention before Ajax has a chance to finish off Hector.

  10. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted March 30, 2013 at 1:33 am | Permalink

    Dror makes an implicit point that is occasionally conflated with an explicit point, and this does not seem to be by accident.

    Dror used the term “right” – and “rights” are usually a term used to describe privileges, which can be limited by an external authority – with the term he seems to really mean, DUTY. Cut and paste this article, and, using the search and re[lace function within your words processor, replace the word “right” with “DUTY.” Much easier to understand, yes?

    His emphasis on the phrase “STATE of Israel” is of the first importance. States, in international law, are legal entities that do not necessarily require a physical country as a condition of existence. If the worst befalls the Zionist Entity, as it certainly will, the STATE of Israel could exist temporally as a post office box in Geneva, with full membership in all international entities, empowered to speak on behalf of the Jewish Race.

    Excellent thoughtpiece, Mr. Hamilton, and I firmly second the comments of GTRMan.

  11. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted March 29, 2013 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    “…And if the threat is sufficiently grave, the use of weapons of mass destruction by Israel would be justified if likely to be necessary for assuring the state’s survival, the bitter price of large numbers of killed innocent civilians notwithstanding.”

    Here he is obviously hinting at Iran, justifying a preventive nuclear attack on that hapless country. The problem with this kind of people is that their psychopathic paranoia will drive them to wholly unnecessary genocidal acts. Iran is not developing nuclear arms, nor has it the intention to “wipe Israel off the map”, but even the slightest possibility of that happening in the future would justify a genocide for these psychopaths.

    BTW, the indirect genocide of the white race by means of mass immigration of non-whites and the promotion of miscegenation is itself a Jewish project, exactly to “ensure the survival of the Jews”, who see life as a zero sum survival game. Whites might become “Nazis”, therefore they must be preventively genocided.

    Their religious festivals such as Pesach and Purim clearly have the same paranoid genocidal motifs. These people belong in a psychiatric institution, they should not have an own state, let alone a nuclear armed one.

    • White Republican
      Posted March 31, 2013 at 3:20 am | Permalink

      I think that a preventative nuclear attack on the state of Israel would be entirely in order. The danger that these “kooks with nukes” pose to Europe is intolerable. As the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has boasted:

      “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother. . . .’ Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”

    • Vacant Serif
      Posted March 31, 2013 at 5:43 am | Permalink

      Not to mention Passover. Happy Easter.

      • Proofreader
        Posted March 31, 2013 at 7:42 am | Permalink

        Pesach is Passover.

  12. GTRman
    Posted March 29, 2013 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    ” If whites (or anyone else) did to Jews what they and the System are doing to whites, the violence of their reaction would, by now, have been staggering. Jews would have employed weapons of mass destruction, assassinated members of the ruling class, and carried out horrible massacres in retaliation.”

    See the world in a grain of sand .

    That paragraph should be memorised , and spread around .

    Great stuff .

2 Trackbacks

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above