Print this post Print this post

“No Apologies”: A Response

1,731 words

NoApologiesRecently, Counter-Currents posted a video produced by Oscar Turner entitled “No Apologies.” While the video itself is a quite powerful wake-up call for white people, it made some points which I believe need to be addressed further. 

Mr. Turner is absolutely correct in his assertion that whites should not apologize for things their ancestors did in the past. As he points out, some of these things (colonialism, imperialism, Apartheid) were not as evil as the mainstream narratives paint them to be, and indeed were often justified or had beneficial effects. In addition, other past sins today’s whites are being held accountable for (the Crusades, slavery, the Holocaust) were nothing that nonwhites weren’t also guilty of and to a greater extent.

This is all true, and Mr. Turner deserves credit for helping to give a shot in the arm to whites, who, for the past several generations, have been perplexed and paralyzed with unjustified feelings of guilt over historical events that they, personally, had nothing to do with. Nonwhites have been using this guilt to manipulate us into giving away much of our wealth and power to them and to slowly cede our very homelands to imvaders (to coin a term) who at best wish to supplant us demographically and at worst wish to kill or enslave us.

This tide must be turned now, and “No Apologies” is as good a mantra as any to rally whites to man the barricades in the existential culture war we are presently waging.

I do have several quibbles with the video, some more picayune than others. For example, in the section about not apologizing for slavery, Mr. Turner states that “More whites were abducted and enslaved by Muslims than the number of blacks enslaved by whites.” Technically, this is true. However, someone who may appreciate this message but knows a little history may brush off such a claim depending on how loosely they interpret the word “enslaved.”

According to The Mainstream of Civilization, Fifth Edition, a textbook published in 1989 by Harcourt Brace, around 11.7 million Africans were sent to the New World as slaves, with approximately 1.9 million of them dying along the way. This roughly correlates with Philip Curtin’s estimate of 9.3 million Africans being transported along the Atlantic slave trade. Of these, just under 400,000 came to British North America or the United States. By 1860, mostly due to white slave-owners’ benevolent practice of allowing slaves to marry and have children, not working them to death, and occasionally freeing them, this number had increased tenfold.

On the other hand, Robert Davis estimates that from 1500-1800, Muslim barbary pirates enslaved between 1 and 1.25 million white Christians along the coasts of the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic. Furthermore, M. A. Kahn, a former Muslim, lists sources which estimate that the Ottoman Empire and other Muslim Tatars in the east had enslaved around 2.5 million Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Circassians, Armenians, Bulgarians, and other white Slavs around the same time period.

So, clearly more blacks were held as slaves by whites than whites by Muslims. But, according to Webster’s, holding someone as a slave is not the same as enslaving them, which means, in effect, making them into a slave when before they weren’t one. Whites actually “enslaved” far fewer blacks than the 11-odd million they picked up on the east coast of Africa during the time of the Atlantic slave trade. This was because at that point most of these blacks were already slaves and needed only to be bought and paid for. The whites, owing to their susceptibility to exotic diseases, couldn’t go into the African interior and abduct the slaves themselves. In any case, other blacks had already done that dirty job for them for the handfuls of ivory, silver, or whatever it was they thought their own kind was worth back then.

So, while being correct in a lawyerly kind of way, Mr. Turner’s statement may not be terribly persuasive if someone is not immediately ready to differentiate between owning slaves and enslaving slaves. I think we need to be more careful in the future.

On the other hand, if Mr. Turner had said, “More blacks were abducted and enslaved by Muslims than the number of blacks enslaved by whites,” he would have been absolutely correct and still have maintained his original point. According to Stephan Molyneux, in the fourteen centuries of Islam, Muslims enslaved approximately 200 million people (150 million of whom were black Africans), with an estimated death toll of 112 million. So, sure, why should whites be henpecked into apologizing for slavery when Muslims have far more blood on their hands?

A little more serious is my quibble with how Mr. Turner dealt with the Holocaust. When introducing the topic of “the alleged Holocaust,” he splashes the word “HOAX” on the screen. But nowhere in the text does he deny that the Holocaust occurred. Well, which is it? Did the Holocaust occur or not? I agree with Mr. Turner that whites should not apologize for the Holocaust. I also agree with him about Jewish complicity in the Holodomor and other large-scale Soviet atrocities from the 1920s and 1930s. But the Holocaust being a hoax is something I think the Alt-Right should get its story straight on. If Mr. Turner is saying that the very idea that whites should feel guilty over the Holocaust is a hoax, then I am with him. It’s just that this wasn’t made clear in the video. And for the record, I’m not a Holocaust denier by any means.

Another issue I have with the video is the question of Israel. On one hand, he (rightly) supports the idea of ethno-nationalism among Europeans. On the other, he seems to disapprove of ethno-nationalism among Jews. I believe we all should be consistent about this. After all, if Jews became more ethno-nationalistic, they would be more likely or willing to resettle in Israel. This would decimate the liberal, pro-immigration forces in traditionally white nations (whose leading lights are, more often than not, Jews). As a result, such an exodus would enable racially-conscious whites to better control their destinies. This would include controlling our borders, deporting imvaders, and eventually returning to the 90% to 95% white majorities we had in our homelands prior to the 1960s. If whites play their cards right in the next 40-50 years, they could use Zionism as an important means to this end. We should never forget that, ideally, whites should re-establish their ethnostates as smoothly and as bloodlessly as possible. I believe having Israel around will help them do that since it will give Jews a place to go once whites have their great racial reawakening.

Mr. Turner also seems to blame Israel’s “displacement” of Palestinians for the massive influx of refugees into Europe. “The Zionists drive them out,” he says, “and we have to take them in.” I don’t understand his logic here. If this were true, then why did Muslims wait until the past couple decades to really start flooding into Europe? Israel is 68 years old. That’s a long time for a cause to have an effect. Further, as we all know, many of this current wave of imvaders are Syrians, not Palestinians, and were made homeless by the recent spate of fighting in that area. I don’t see how you can blame Zionism for that since Arabs are not shy about doing beastly things to other Arabs. For example, see how the elder King Assad of Syria levelled the city of Hama in 1982 and murdered 25,000 of its inhabitants. According to David Pryce-Jones, Arabs dug up corpses after the massacre and defiled them. It makes sense that many Arabs would wish to flee the Arab world to escape their own barbarism. Further, many of these imvaders are Egyptians and Moroccans and Pakistanis. How exactly did the Israelis displace these people as well?

Finally, I believe all of us should be consistent with our treatment of Muslims. This is not a knock on Mr. Turner, because it is something he barely touched upon. Rather, it’s something his video made me think about which I would like to share. Of course, as Mr. Turner says, we should not apologize for the Crusades. Those wars were an effort to take back the Holy Land from the Muslims who had stolen it from Christian whites by the sword and who had attempted on several occasions to conquer Europe. So far, so good. Yet when we talk about the formation of Israel, I’ve read how many on the Alt-Right choose to see the Palestinians as innocent victims, as if their “displacement” by the Israelis shouldn’t have happened.

This is not consistent. If you support the Crusades, then you must believe that Muslims do not belong in the Holy Land. So then why is it appropriate for Crusaders to displace Muslims in the Holy Land but not Jews?

In my opinion, we should have very little sympathy for the Muslims, even the ones mistreated by Israelis, since Middle Eastern and African Muslims at the very least behave in such barbaric ways. They are barbaric in their own countries and they are barbaric in ours. Just because some readers of this article may share a resentment of Jews with Muslims does not mean we should make Muslims our allies. Historically, these people have shown as much hostility against whites as they do against Jews. They, as a people, are not trustworthy. I’m sure many of us have very strong – and very negative – opinions of Jews. But we should not let this cloud our eyes to the fact that the greatest enemy of civilization is barbarism: brutish, stupid, violent, barbarism. And the Jews, for all their crimes, are primarily white collar criminals.

Oscar Turner is absolutely right that whites should not apologize for things our ancestors did. “No Apologies” is a great message to race-realist whites everywhere. But making his arguments clearer and more consistent would go a long way to make sure this message goes well beyond the choir.


The Mainstream of CivilizationFifth Edition, Chodorow, Knox, Schirokauer, Strayer, Gatzke, Harcourt Brace, 1989, p. 754.

The Western Experience, Volume II, Sixth Edition, Chambers, Grew, Herlihy, Rabb, Woloch, McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1995. p. 597.

Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters, Robert C. Davis, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. p. 8.

Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery, M.A. Kahn, iUniverse, Inc., 2009. Chapter 7. (8:32 mark)

The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs, David Pryce-Jones, Ivan R. Dee Publisher, 2002. pp. 335-36.


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.


  1. Posted August 28, 2016 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    I appreciate the criticism Spencer Quinn, if you give me your email I might even send you some scripts of mine in the future to go through and fact check. It’s a constant learning experience with any creative work so I appreciate the feedback. I had already sent the “No Apologies” script in March to Greg to look over some changes and editing, but next time I’ll ask a few more of my comrades to give me input and perspective. Future videos on my channel are also going to be in the form of video essays from books I’m reading so hopefully there won’t be as much of an issue with fact checks in the future. Thank you.

  2. Skyler Thomas
    Posted June 30, 2016 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    Argument I:

    A substantial portion of the “White” slave owners were Jewish – I think even Molyneux, who’s admittedly part Jewish, admitted this. Since Jews are a Semitic, non-European ethnicity it seems only fair their crimes should be isolated from Europeans. Another constantly overlooked factor is the Jewish involvement in White Christian slaves. A great video/archive is William Pierce’s “Jews and the White Slave Trade.” But because Jews like to present themselves as “White,” and rely so much on “Gentile” aid and naivety, they spare no expense covering all of this up.

    Argument II:

    Excluding the Holocaust is entirely a racket Jews shamelessly and callously misuse to extract moral and financial gain and instil guilt and submission into those they seek to control – which should be enough to condemn it altogether. Even if the Holocaust happened as Jews say it did – and weren’t a totally distorted exaggeration made by a people known for their opportunism, bias, schizophrenia, conniving and untrustworthiness – what does it matter to anyone who isn’t Jewish? Why should Pols or Romanians care about Jews – many of which have been proven to have died from *typhus* anyway – when so many of their own people have been brutally killed over time? Is there a Romanian museum in Tel Aviv, paid for by Jewish tax-dollars, to honor the memory of all those Romanians killed by Turks? No? Why not! Jews aren’t even European, so in reality the Holocaust asks Europeans to mourn the deaths of invasive, subversive Semitic interlopers “murdered” – in reality destined to be deported to Palestine, see Edwin Black’s “The Transfer Agreement” – after centuries of being ejected from one European nation after another for their persistent mischievous behavior. Asking Europeans to concern themselves with Jews is akin to asking the Chinese to mourn Mongols killed in China, or Greeks to cry over Turks killed in Greece. The Bubonic Plague was more devastating to Europe than the Holocaust. The only people the it should even make a difference to are Jews – but for Jews it’s not so much about what happened as what they can get out of it.

    Argument III:

    Jews do not support Ethno-nationalism for Europeans. About the best we can ever hope to get are the likes of Michael Savage and Michael Hart. Jews always support Kosher nationalism for the “Goy.” Jews always support racial diversity and secularism – even in the context of White nationalism/separatism; just ask Michael “a mostly White ethno-state with Jews and Asians” Hart, or Michael “it’s not about genetics, it’s about language and borders” Savage. Why support the sovereignty and explicit identity for the very people that deny you yours?

    Argument IV:

    “… if Jews became more ethno-nationalistic, they would be more likely or willing to resettle in Israel.”

    I respectfully, but strongly disagree. Jews are already possibly the most ethnocentric people on Earth – how much more could they get? – and have had more than 60 years to resettle in Israel. What are they waiting for? I believe Jews have no intention of relinquishing their wealth, influence and standing in the diaspora. Why would they? Especially considering our elites are in their pockets? Jews get to have Israel to themselves *and* have privilege, wealth, footing and influence in the diaspora. Why would they willingly change that? Because it’s the right thing to do? Should we hold our breath? It’s a nice daydream, but it’s certain to fail. At least in my opinion.

    Argument V:

    “… I believe all of us should be consistent with our treatment of Muslims.”

    But *not* in our treatment of Jews? We should judge all blacks, Hispanics and Muslims collectively, but *not* Jews. Jews are an exception?

    Argument VI:

    There are so many examples of how Zionism specifically comes into play it’s mind-boggling how anyone can deny it. Currently the West is seeing an influx of Islamic Third-World invaders because Israel is balkanizing the entire Middle East – with the exception of perhaps Saudi Arabia – this has been planned for decades going back to Oded Yinon’s plan to create and fund radical groups to weaken all sovereign Middle Eastern regions – with the exception of Israel, of course. Just like when Israel invented Hamas. Zionists have corrupted our governments to put Israeli/Jewish interests ahead of everyone else, so Americans and Europeans are actually footing the bill and shedding blood for their wars e.g. what’s going on in Syria has *nothing* to do with the U.S. or Europe – entirely a Jewish problem. Assad, in my opinion, is a good leader for his people – it makes no sense *unless* you take Israel into account. In Western nations Jews fervently oppose all organizations and institutions seeking to preserve and express the interests and heritage of Europeans. Likewise, in non-European nations, they work to break down the solidarity and homogeneity of the prominent ethnic groups – as we see happening throughout the Middle East. It is part of the Jewish M.O. to foment multiculturalism, as they see a squabbling society as easy prey to their intense and well-organized efforts i.e. Divide and Conquer. A primary example of this can be seen in Lebanon and Palestine. Most Lebanese and Palestinians are Muslim, but a significant proportion are Christian. Israel has actively promoted hatred and civil war between Christians and Muslims in the Middle East. One of the reasons that Ariel Sharon arranged for the slaughter of Muslim refugees by the Lebanese Phalangist militia forces in ’82 was to instill conflict and promote bitter hatred among Israel’s Arab enemies. The destabilization of nations by through multicultural and multi-religious immigration, as well as promotion of existing ethnic and religious divisions within nations, has been long-practiced strategy of Jewry.

    • Simon Magus
      Posted July 1, 2016 at 10:09 am | Permalink

      Very well put. I agree with every word and disagree with the article on these very grounds.

      The original video has it right.

    • Spencer Quinn
      Posted July 5, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      Hi Skyler.

      Sorry it took so long for me to respond. Thanks for all your arguments. You’ve given me a lot, so I cannot respond to everything. I will say, however, that we are kind of arguing past each other. You argue about Holocaust and other issues related to Jews. I argue mostly about the video. I think my original point concerning the video itself remains unrefuted. I say that the video would have been a stronger recruitment piece if the author either addressed whether the Holocaust was a hoax or ignored the hoax issue altogether. As it stands, he tried to get it both ways, i.e., hinting that the Holocaust was a hoax and then switching tactics, explaining that because of anti-Gentilic atrocities on the part of Jews in the early USSR we shouldn’t apologize for the Holocaust. While he is right in his latter assertion, I’m afraid that someone who may be on the fence about the Alt-Right would notice this bait and switch and be put off. I think that the author would have been more honest had he simply said we shouldn’t apologize for the Holocaust because the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and is used today by Jews to manipulate gentiles, etc. Whether one agrees with this or not, such a tack would have made the piece less deceptive and offered information which can be proven or disproven. The same would be the case if he just avoided the hoax issue entirely and simply played the part of a player in a No Apologies poker game: seeing your Holocaust and raising you a Holodomor and other atrocities. In my opinion, that is better approach (which could be a topic of a later post). Either way, we still have ample reasons not to apologize.

      There was a scene in the Exorcist when we see lightning flash in a kitchen. It had been very dark, but the lightning revealed split seconds of brilliant light. If you play the video slowly, you will see that the filmmakers had placed scary images on the walls, ceiling, and cabinets, which, of course, the lightning gave us subliminal glimpses of. This, in my opinion, is almost like cheating. The filmmakers didn’t think their material was scary enough, so they had to gussy up the set design in unmotivated ways to provide frights.

      Oscar Turner does something nearly as sneaky when he labeled the Holocaust a hoax and then refused to talk about it. You may not mind the messaging in this instance, but someone beyond the Alt-Right choir but thinking of joining us just might.

      (As an aside, I really don’t think that we even need to prove that the Holocaust was a hoax. Even if the mainstream historians are correct about the Holocaust, I think that the anti-Gentilic atrocities in the USSR and very phenomenon of Bolshevism as a Jewish thing is enough to dispel much of its power.)

      As for your other arguments, there is so much there I both agree with and disagree with that it would take too long for me to respond here. But I will take the info you’ve given and perhaps incorporate some into a later post. I really appreciate your time in posting this comment.

  3. Petronius
    Posted June 30, 2016 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    Exactly the points I disliked or thought of as misguided as well.

    As for the crusades: ah well, the discussion who really rightfully owns the “Holy Land”, and who allegedly stole it from whom is tiresome. It reminds me always of this hilarious video:

    I’m OK with the crusades since this was simple basic conquering business which folks just used to do for centuries, and certainly a kind of “counter-jihad”.

  4. NoName NoName
    Posted June 30, 2016 at 1:10 am | Permalink

    I highly recommend researching the historical accuracy of the event known as “The Holocaust”. Nobody denies that Jewish people were fundamentally mistreated by the Germans. Nobody denies that Jewish people became POWs in Germany. However, there is no evidence of “gas chambers”. There is no evidence of “6 million”. There is no evidence of a “Final Solution”, etc. This is important. Do we think Jewish people only hold the Germans responsible for “The Holocaust”? Do we think they aren’t still “upset” about it? We must also ask the question; Why did the National Socialists have an intense dislike of the Jewish people beyond just Bolshevism/Communism/Marxism? What did the Jewish people do to the Germans, would be the better question. Nothing justifies cruel treatment of anyone else, but essentially, Hitler and the National Socialists simply wanted Jews, Jewish influence, and Jewish financial power out of Germany (and Europe). They didn’t want to “exterminate” the Jews. Delousing rooms are not “gas chambers”. Typhus killed MILLIONS. German supply lines had been consistently bombed by the Allies leading to food and water shortages in Germany itself. The regular German people were starving to death in the final moments of the war, but only the “starving Jews” are portrayed, as if the Germans weren’t suffering, as well. If you come to see that the “Holocaust” isn’t what mainstream conformists make it out to be, it becomes much easier to look objectively at Hitler, the National Socialists, and National Socialist Germany. Here’s a thorough and scholarly look at the “Jewish problem” in Germany

    • Arindam
      Posted June 30, 2016 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      Thank you for the link: that book is truly an eye-opener. Three excerpts for those interested:

      1) ‘The final case in this long series of corruption scandals was the one dealing with the Rotter brothers. These two Jewish speculators had formed a combine embracing seven of the largest Berlin theatres. The work of exploiting these theatres was considerably facilitated by the flotation of several companies whose affairs were placed in the hands of an ignorant though willing person acting as a mere figure head. In one single year, 1932, these two adventurers were able to squeeze no less than 300,000 Marks clear profit out of these under takings after all expenses had been met. Their monthly salaries, which they themselves had fixed at 2,000 Marks each were not included in this figure. A further 400,000 Marks accrued to them as the result of a fraudulent contract respecting two cultural undertakings. While Christian actors in these theatres were badly underpaid, the Jewish “stars” on the other hand received fantastic salaries, as much as 1,000 to 2,500 Marks per evening being no rare occurrence. The Rotter brothers lived a life of splendid luxury and the day came in 1932 when their concern also finally crashed with debts amounting to 3.5 million Marks. The two brothers declined all responsibility for the crash and decamped to Liechtenstein for which country they had taken care to obtain papers of naturalization.’ (Chapter Three)

      2) ‘No one was more successful than the leading pacifist Jews in giving Germany’s enemies suitable material for propaganda.

      Prominent in this work is the Jew already referred to, Dr. Richard Grelling — a name undoubtedly still well-remembered in the former Allied countries. Before the War he emigrated to Switzerland and there published his two books J’accuse and Das Verbrechen (The Crime) in which he attempted to prove Germany’s alleged guilt for the outbreak of hostilities. This book was very widely circulated in the Allied and neutral countries as an “authoritative and convincing” personal document of Germany’s war guilt and all the attendant horrors. In 1917, Karl Federn, Grelling’s co-religionist and also an author, replied by denouncing Grelling’s conduct as “dishonourable” and stating further that Grelling had built up his case “by lies and the use of false and forged documents.” Grelling never replied to these severe charges which were constantly repeated in later years. On the contrary, he was coward enough to attempt to deny authorship of these two books.’ (Chapter Four)

      3) ‘Germany had to pay dearly for the illusion that it is possible to solve the Jewish question by means of a generous effort to assimilate the Jews. She had reckoned without a factor of decisive importance: namely, the congenital, in grained, boundless ingratitude of the Jewish race. Not the least of the reasons for the uncompromising attitude of German anti-Semitism — an attitude that has often been misunderstood abroad — is the glaring contrast, irrefutably evidenced by the events of the past decades, between the incontestable good faith of the Germans and the cynical ingratitude of the Jews.

      That this contrast constitutes, so to speak, the nucleus of the whole Jewish problem, has been publicly admitted by two leading Jews. The Chief Rabbi of Hamburg, Dr. Joseph Karlebach, wrote in the Jewish review Der Morgen (vol. II, p. 129, 1930): “to be a Jew, is to be opposed to the natural attitude of human beings.” (Conclusion)

      After reading the book, I couldn’t help but wonder whether Weimar Germany was a harbinger of the fate that awaited the rest of the West in the remainder of the Twentieth Century.

  5. Colliton
    Posted June 29, 2016 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Once Whites regain self-confidence, it will be all over for the non-White interlopers who will have to find other places to plunder. This video did a good job trying to inspire greater morale and self-confidence among Whites.
    As for the bloody holocaust of jews in WW II, sure it took place, just not in the way our school textbooks outline. There’s definitely a hoax in the official story and we have been defrauded of much since the end of the war.

  6. Arindam
    Posted June 29, 2016 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Two points:

    1) ‘But we should not let this cloud our eyes to the fact that the greatest enemy of civilization is barbarism: brutish, stupid, violent, barbarism.’

    One could argue that the greatest enemy of civilization is not barbarism but decadence, which, by weakening a society spiritually, socially, politically – and ultimately, militarily – paves the way for its subjugation by barbarians.

    2) ‘For example, see how the elder King Assad of Syria levelled the city of Hama in 1982 and murdered 25,000 of its inhabitants.’

    The late President Hafez al-Assad of Syria was responding to a Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Hama, knowing full well what was at stake in dealing with these antecedents of Daesh. As Robert Baer noted:

    ‘When I first set foot in Damascus in 1980, I estimated that Hafiz al-Asad would have maybe three or four years before he went under. The Muslim Brothers owned the street. The mosque schools were teaching jihad, just as the Saudi madrasahs do today. The mosque public-address systems blared out a message of hate and revenge, just as they do in Saudi Arabia today. Lebanon next door was an arms bazaar: You name it, someone had it. Asad had seized power in a military coup in 1970. What goes around comes around, I figured; the guy’s going to get strung up on a light pole in downtown Damascus like a lot of other Syrians. Instead, he died in his sleep at age seventy…

    We’ve already been over why: the ruthless assault on the Sunni stronghold at Hama, the way Asad took control of the mosque schools and silenced and killed dissent when it wouldn’t shut up, his total control of the armed forces, and so on. Pretty it wasn’t. “Democracy” it certainly isn’t. But Hafiz al-Asad forced a rule of law on the Syrian people… When Asad handed the country over to his son, it was as stable a dictatorship as any in the Middle East.’ (Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil, pages 207-8; italics in the original.)

    His case brought to mind something Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:

    ‘Being able to suffer is the least thing: weak women and even slaves often attain mastery in that. But not to perish of inner distress and uncertainty when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of this suffering – that is great, that belongs to greatness.’ (Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 325).

    His Westernized son was not quite as ruthless (though in fairness, Bashar al-Asad was not the one who was initially meant to succeed his father), and one could argue that Syria has paid a very high price simply because of that…

    • Spencer Quinn
      Posted July 5, 2016 at 9:44 am | Permalink

      Hi Arindam,

      1) Yes, but if there were no barbarism then decadence would be more tolerable. Decadence I believe is also reversible. Barbarism, not so much.

      2) You’re providing reasons why Assad’s actions in Hama were justified, and you may very well be correct. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t barbaric. These are basically barbaric people doing barbaric things to each other. Further, there was no justification for defiling graves. That’s just barbarism for barbarism’s sake. It makes sense that Arabs would want to escape all this. (Of course, it doesn’t make sense that Europeans should take these people in, who bring their barbarism with them.)

      • Arindam
        Posted July 7, 2016 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

        Thank you for responding, Mr. Quinn.

        I think the term ‘barbarism’ is an inadequate description of what is overrunning Europe: fanaticism I believe is more accurate.

        The difference is that whilst barbarians are politically hostile to civilization, they are culturally amenable to it – and hence over time, barbarians pick up the mannerisms and customs of the high cultures they come into contact with – i.e. they become (somewhat) civilized. (Cases would include the Mongols in proximity to Chinese culture, the Gauls and Celts in relation to the Graeco-Roman culture, the White Huns with regard to Indian culture, etc.. etc…)

        Fanatics are not just politically hostile, they are also culturally hostile. For them, it is not sufficient to conquer the civilized states: the destruction of the civilization itself is the aim. In other words, there is a genocidal imperative here that goes far beyond mere barbarism. (The obvious cases would be the annihilation of the Mexican and Peruvian high cultures at the hands of the conquistadors [helped greatly, of course, by disease], the near-total destruction of Zoroastrian Iran by Islam – and indeed, the fate of all the other civilizations of West Asia and North Africa at the hands of the Muslims.)

        The contrast may be likened to a flood: if your fields are flooded by fresh water, the current crops are destroyed, but in the future, new, greater harvests will be reaped. If they are flooded with salt water, then not only is the current harvest destroyed, but the saline land remains infertile thereafter.

        In my view, the Syrian case is not one of barbarians fighting barbarians (such as Mongols versus Turks), but rather, the pale remnants of a (Mediterranean/Levantine/Phoenician?) civilization desperately combating an incorrigible fanaticism that has already done immense harm to the entire region.

        Regarding barbarism and decadence, I was perusing Nietzsche’s Human, All Too Human the other day, and stumbled upon two passages that nicely provide a contrast between the two:

        ‘246: The cyclops of culture – When we behold those deeply-furrowed hollows in which glaciers have lain, we think it hardly possible that a time will come when a wooded, grassy valley, watered by streams, will spread itself upon the same spot. So it is, too, in the history of mankind: the most savage forces beat a path, and are mainly destructive; but their work was nonetheless necessary, in order that later a gentler civilization might raise its house. The frightful energies – those which are called evil – are the cyclopean architects and road-makers of humanity.

        247: Circular orbit of humanity – Perhaps the whole of humanity is no more than a stage in the evolution of a certain species of animal of limited duration: so that man has emerged from ape and will return to the ape, while there will be no one present to take any sort of interest in this strange comic conclusion. Just as, with the decline of Roman culture and its principal cause, the spread of Christianity, a general uglification of man prevailed within the Roman Empire, so an eventual decline of the general culture of the earth could also introduce a much greater uglification and in the end animalization of man to the point of apelikeness. – Precisely because we are able to visualize this prospect we are perhaps in a position to prevent it from occurring.’ (Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, italics in the original).

        Much more could be said regarding these matters, but this post is long enough, so I will stop here.

  7. Dov
    Posted June 29, 2016 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    I was also disappointed with the “Hoax” stamp over the Holocaust segment. I happen to think that both sides go too far, but the nuances of the revisionist historical approach are too fine to present in this type of video (as well made as it was overall), and I think it would have been better for Turner to stick with the counterargument that Whites are no worse than other groups. With that said, he made a good video demonstrating the style most likely to gather recruits to the WN/Identitarian cause.

    • Spencer Quinn
      Posted July 5, 2016 at 9:45 am | Permalink

      Hi Dov. I agree. Thanks for posting.

  8. Brent Damery
    Posted June 29, 2016 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    I agree with some of the sentiment of this article, but I have a comment to make in context of the criticism against Turner for noting Israeli hand in driving out Arabs so they can be pushed into white homelands. Perhaps Turner did mean exactly as the current article states, in which case it’s argument would be correct. However, in the context of the overall Jewish hand in bringing war to various Middle Eastern countries through neocon policy as a push factor AND being the intellectual progenitors and instigators of pull factors bringing the “refugees” created by these policies to the shores of white nations, I believe Turner has ground to stand. Of course, one must also keep in mind the difficulty of portraying truths accurate in all contexts in the span of a short video is extremely difficult. Obviously, we need to do our best to break out of the “choir” to get the message to whites who are largely resistant to its truth, so any manner in which we can improve upon our methods is definitely warranted, so in that spirit I support the current article.

    • Spencer Quinn
      Posted July 5, 2016 at 9:46 am | Permalink

      Hi Brent. Thank you for your insights.

  9. Fashionista
    Posted June 29, 2016 at 2:53 am | Permalink

    I’d be hard-pressed to call the Holodomor and Soviet Red Terror “white collar” crimes.

    • Jaego
      Posted June 30, 2016 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

      Yes, and during the Revolution, Russians were often amazed to see formerly bookish, intellectual Jews throw off that identity and become armed goons.

  10. Posted June 28, 2016 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    “the greatest enemy of civilization is barbarism: brutish, stupid, violent, barbarism”

    Maybe it’s just me, but I think that makes blacks our greatest enemy.

    On Muslims/Palestine:

    Clearly Muslims belong in their own countries, but that doesn’t mean they should be mistreated by other states or we should just ignore when they are.

    I’ve noticed a curious memory blackout has appeared on the right over this topic.

    The Right today seems to forget, that while Islam clearly has historical tendencies to barbarism and violent extremism, as far as White people are concerned today, it’s been whipped up like a hornet’s nest by a series of US military adventures and the US’s extremist pro-Jewish Israel policy in the Middle East. The Jewish lobby, as demonstrated by Walt and Meirsheimer has been an intimate and decisive part of US foreign policy, and the world now faces a considerable terrorism problem as a result.

    The treatment and fate of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is something the United States could solve but chooses not to. We may not like Muslims, fine (and some Palestinians are Christians) but should we not care about anything our governments inflict if we care about justice ? And in this case the injustice is even affecting our own future.

    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


    The Node


    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


    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


    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy


    The Path of Cinnabar


    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace


    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above