View Single Post
Old October 16th, 2014 #80
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Default

Seventy years on, Hitler is a code word for White, nothing more. The reason why "it is hard enough to get Americans or Swedes or Englishmen concerned with stopping their own ethnic displacement," despite this position's being "rational" and "based on reality," is that jews play the Hitler card, and Whites get defensive. That's all. Johnson has to know this, but his advice is to "step over" the Hitler card. Like Joe, I have to wonder if it's because Johnson is detached from reason and reality that he so often rhetorically invokes them.

You don't have to be NS to say there is nothing wrong with Hitler's attitude to jews, and to prove it. In fact, reality and reason would indicate that doing so is vital to WN, since the Hitler card is played every time mention is made of anything pro-White. Gag thinks you remove the Hitler card objection by "indignantly reject[ing] the charge," i.e., by going on the defensive. But the non-defensive way to remove this objection is by asserting the truth of Hitler's analysis of the jew.

It's true that Hitler was 70 years ago. What does he mean today? For the most part, he means White self-assertion today. Only an intellectual could be thick enough to misapprehend this. Hitler, Nazism, et al. don't mean (in Western Europe at least) anti-Russian chauvinism, militarism, someone's grandma's becoming a widow. That's the part that was 70 years ago. The evergreen part is what Gag runs from or imagines he will be permitted to "step over" by "indignant rejection": "You want a racial homeland? You're Hitler!"

You see, Hitler has joined Lincoln and other monstres sacres in standing for things important to the contemporary mind, despite the Beckmessers. Lincoln stands for racial integration (despite his repatriation scheme and personal dislike of blacks); Hitler stands for White Nationalism (despite his focus on Germans). We are "Hitler." No, we don't have to wrap ourselves in the swastika or march around singing the Horst Wessel song, but yes, we do have to stand up and say, in effect, "You're damn right I'm Hitler. He was right on everything you hate, and the Holocaust is a lie. Jews and their lies stand between us and a future. We've got to eliminate them, then we can get to work building a decent White society."

An additional point. Johnson says: "[M]iddle class white liberals over the age of 40 have a huge amount of the power in this society.[...] Every society is ruled by elites. Every revolution is launched by elites." He leaves out something crucial: every revolution is launched by disaffected elites. Middle class white liberals over the age of 40 are not disaffected, nor are those who "rule society." As Dan Hadaway observed, they are "stuffed pigs." Also, how many revolutions were made by anyone over 40? Most revolutionaries started young; they were unemployed young people or students who spent a lot of time arguing with each other in cafes or beer halls. And becoming street fighters. When Johnson says "[non-intellectual Whites] will not save our race without leadership, and to be effective, the leadership of the white masses must be, on average, better than the masses," what exactly is he proposing that the stuffed pigs lead the masses in? In street fights? In political takeovers? That's what revolution is. The last people in the world to do any of that work are middle class White liberals over the age of 40. The people who will initiate it and do it will be young disaffected smart men and young brawlers and toughs. Johnson's "elite" might drop some money their way, that's all (probably not, or not without many distracting strings attached) — but why should they, if they "rule society"? When Gag writes that "[tasteful intellectuals and middle class White liberals over the age of 40 must] outmatch our Jewish and plutocratic enemy elites in brains, will, and ruthlessness," one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. Possibly this line flatters the people who write his checks, but it is, again, detached from reality and reason. Or is it that Johnson really thinks the way to revolution is solely to fund and write "ruthless" articles? Ruthless? When he advocates evading or downplaying the Jewish Question?

Johnson is simply a joke. He's everything Alex says he is.
__________________
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; October 16th, 2014 at 06:05 AM.