You know what I hate? Cowards.
There's a reason Plato discussed only four virtues, out of all the possibilities, as what makes a man. Wisdom, Temperance, Courage, and Justice. All of these words have incredibly deep meanings to a philosopher, they are not just buzz words to be thrown out on every possible occasion.
I've written a post on Justice. Perhaps it's time to write a post on Courage. I like my definition of justice -- justice is when evil doers are worse off than good people. That's all I ask. Be our lives ever so miserable, evil people should be even more miserable, they should not profit from their deeds. Punishing evil doers so that their lives are worse than good people's, is the heart and soul of justice -- the whole long and short of it. It isn't because I want to stop their behavior, though I'm certainly glad to see it stopped. It's because it isn't right for an evil person to benefit from his evil deeds towards others, or for a good person to suffer for doing good to others. This is innately wrong, and the balance books must be ledgered. The debt must be paid. If we have the power, we should always use it to punish evil and reward good, wherever we can, whenever we can. God is not just because he does not do this. For this, he can never be forgiven. In fact, from this fact alone, it's obvious no such God exists. If God existed there would be justice in the world. There is no justice, therefore, God does not exist. But if he did exist, he would never be my God. A God who allows evil to prosper and good to be punished, who rewards bad behavior and abandons the innocent, is no God of mine.
(And don't give me bullshit about the afterlife. By then it's far too late to right what's gone wrong. What about all the years in THIS life the evil thrived and the good suffered? You can't simply erase what's already happened by adding more shit on later. And don't give me bullshit about 'free will,' if it is right for police to restrain criminals by force, it is just as right for God to restrain criminals by force. The idea that we can't violate the 'free will' of rapists and thus must let them do whatever they please to the rest of us, is bullshit only religious people could possibly swallow, and only because they are quite content to use double-think and contradictions, simply to arrive at the conclusion they want, with no attempt whatsoever to remain logical or principled in making this argument.)
You'll also note that it's possible to contain all four virtues, without doing a single thing. Without being a single thing. Without owning a single thing. You can be tied up in a cellar and the four virtues are with you. You can be a king or a pauper and the four virtues are with you. Note how different the ancient philosophy is from today's values. Now it's about what you do, what you own, that determines your value. No one cares what people ARE. People want to know what job you have, how much money you make, how many sexual conquests you've made, and rush to judgment on that basis. I can't count the number of times people resort to arguments like, "You're just a loser who can't get laid," or "You're just a loser who couldn't get into law school," or "You're just a loser who makes less money than me." This is the concept of morality, of value, in the modern world. If you trot forth enough meaningless credentials and empty accomplishments, that have nothing to do with your moral fiber at all, if you boast about enough material possessions or fortunate circumstances, then you are 'superior' and your opinions are somehow sainted with the light of truth, just by the fact that they spewed out of your holy mouth.
I don't believe in this school, I despise it, I despise anyone who argues with it. They are beneath me. True good people are found out, when you sift long enough, truly valuable people, truly admirable people, when they come across a decision, a crossroads, and they make the right one. The one that demanded the most from their souls, and gave the least to their bodies. People who don't cheat. People who keep their promises. People who defend the innocent or the weak, even if it means exposing themselves to the same injuries. People who rarefy everyone and everything they meet, instead of degrading and debasing it. You know these people. They are like beings of light in a darkened world. They make you happy despite yourself. They make you contemplative, and reflective, and wondering if you couldn't be a bit better like them, every time you meet. These good people, are also the ones who honor the other good people. Who know right from wrong, and judge people by it. Simply saying you love or admire, a lovable or admirable figure, gives you more credit than a million dollars or a dozen doctorates. Mugabe has a million dollars and a dozen doctorates. It says nothing about your character. Only who you are, the choices you make, the paths you take at critical junctures, and the praise or blame you bestow on others when they make their choices, says anything about you. Until then, I don't want to hear it.
Recently, I've been disgusted with all the cowardice showing up in WN circles. Nick Griffen was a worthless coward during Question Time. He should've said "I deny your worthless Holocaust, go fuck yourself," to Jack Straw. Or, if he believes it, he should've explained why he changed his mind over the last 20 years or so. It's a knotty question, there is little evidence to work with, so obviously, without a time machine, honest people can come to very different conclusions. Both the same person over time, and different people at the same time. In my opinion, a complete lack of gassed bodies (note, tons of bodies of disease were found, but not a single body that was gassed was ever found. Are we to believe the Nazis were just extremely efficient when it came to wholly obliterating 6 million gassed bodies while leaving any bodies that died of natural causes, or even gunshot, to lay wherever they fell?), a complete lack of the apparatus needed for such gassings, like serious gas chambers with effective ventilation and serious crematories that could really melt millions of corpses to ashes in the course of a couple years, a complete lack of credible eye witnesses, video tape footage, photos, or anything else showing gas chambers, and a complete lack of documentation where anyone, anywhere said they were gassing jews within the Nazi government, is good enough for me. But I could be wrong, who knows. I could change my mind tomorrow, in light of new facts coming to the fore. I have nothing against Holocaustians who review the facts and come down on the side of the establishment. What I can't stand is a coward who thinks one thing in his heart, and says another thing to the public at large.
If Griffen were a man of honor, he had three options. He could've said "I deny your fucking Holocaust, it is the lie of the century." He could've said, "I used to deny it, but I changed my mind, because of X." Or he could've said, "This question is irrelevant, and certainly not a platform of the BNP, who I represent. Whatever I think in my private life about the holocaust, it has nothing to do with my party's platform, or the politics of today. Let's just move on." Or he could've even said something as simple as "No comment." !!! Just that! Just "No comment." ! And I would have respect for this coward. But no, he claims he never denied the Holocaust, denies his own quotes, and gives no reason whatsoever for his reversal -- with the implication that his reversal is entirely on the surface, and is just a two-faced duplicitous mask. his very manner of speaking and posture, are full of slimy, oily cowardice. Like he's afraid to believe in his own beliefs, like he feels guilty for his own views of right and wrong. Let's be simple, if you feel guilty for believing what you believe, you probably shouldn't believe it anymore! If you feel morally in the wrong for your stance on morals, it's about time to review your moral code! By God, he's worked for white nationalism all his life, but he's still ashamed of himself for doing so! He's still ashamed of his life's work, his very life code! That's cowardice, all the way down to the core.
Griffen lied when he said he is anti-David Duke. That he associates with David Duke only to 'rescue troubled youth.' What an absurd, obvious lie. He associates with David Duke because he agrees with him. At least on most issues, and closely enough, to consider him a comrade. He's friends with friends of David Duke. If he really rejected Duke, he could never accept a friend who accepted David Duke. The doer and the sanctioner of an act, or view, or statement, are one and the same. This is just elementary. But the coward says it anyway. he says it to an entire crowd, a worldwide audience, the most obvious of lies, the most bald-faced, craven excuse to ever come out of someone's mouth, just to escape the charge for the present moment. Who did he think it would sell to? Who did he think would believe it? Anything, apparently, just to escape the situation and not have to defend it. The man who is the spokesmen of a million British, who carries our one chance to stand up for our beliefs and defend our views, instead tries to escape them and run away. If that's how he feels, why didn't he let someone else go on Question Time??? Why doesn't he resign and let some other chairman who actually believes he is a good person, on the side of good, to go take these interviews?
Even the black woman was disgusted with him. He tried to somehow wheedle into her good favor, to grovel to her, to shower distinctions on her -- a black woman who is an inveterate enemy to the cause, who has no right to be in Britain, who is the very personification of ugly, stupid, sub-human inferiority, and he's trying to wag his tail, roll over, and lick her hand, as her most servile subject just looking for a pat on the head. It is possible, however unlikely, that I'd find some black I respected and honored. But it can't be her. It can't be the hitman, the liar, the affirmative action immigrant invader, trying to destroy your life's work, and everything you stand for, right in front of you. If he cannot even distinguish friend from foe, whose side is he on?
Then there's Craig Boedeker. Everyone makes a big deal out of him because he tries to make the softest, most inoffensive pro-white film possible. He is cast as this super moderate who is just trying to restore balance to the world, who would never dream of hurting a fly. I watched the film, and I was unimpressed. Sure, it was okay, but he got these people into interviews on the basis of a lie. He tricked people into thinking they were fighting racism, when in fact he was using them as spokesmen FOR racism. That already made me uncomfortable. Then there is that shameful moment where he throws all the white Americans before 1870 under the bus, saying "Sure, THEY were evil genociders and slavers, but I am descended of immigrants who came AFTER all that. Don't group ME with THOSE people." So whose side are you on, bub? The white race, or irish immigrants in America? Maybe they should be given affirmative action too, while the rest of us wasps suffer forever for our ancestors sins? Is that your position? For the record, I think the conquest of America from the Indians was one of the best events in world history. If the lost continent of Atlantis suddenly showed up in the pacific, full of another continent of savages, cannibals, hunter-gatherers, and stone-age illiterate barbarians, I'd go colonize them too. I think slavery was wrong, but hardly because of how it treated blacks. Blacks were already slaves when we purchased them, and they had a better life here than they ever could have had in Africa, both themselves, and their descendants. I object to slavery because of its impact on real people. It depresses the wages of the white working class that have to compete with them. It unleashed a barbarian, and incompetent, race on its white neighbors, who have become our perpetual albatross. It treats people as chattel and encourages the idea that humans of all sorts can be abused and used by others for purely economic advantage, without any moral concerns.
But I'd rather follow George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both slave owners, to hell and back, than say one word of praise for MLK Jr. I have more respect for these slavers, despite their mistaken attitudes and actions on this one point, than I will ever have for the contemporary, non-slave holding whites of today, who preach for their own extinction and are too craven to stand up for their own children. For Boedeker to throw George Washington and Thomas Jefferson under the bus, to condemn centuries worth of white men at the very moment of our triumph -- The enlightenment, the Age of Discovery, the Industrial Revolution, our conquest of the entire world -- is treachery and cowardice of the highest order. He is no spokesmen for whites. just another cringing coward trying to claim how non-racist he is and flinching from every imagined insult that might be thrown his way, to the point of surrender and apology before ever even being attacked. It's like making a film protesting Stalin, where the first thing you do is admit the evil Kulaks had it coming, and it was quite right to liquidate them, but, but, *I*, personally, am innocent! I shouldn't be lumped in with them! Please, comrade stalin, spare me! Forget all the others, just spare me and we'll be at total peace and equaniminity with each other's policies and views!
If that's Boedeker's motive, and the film seems to corroborate it quite nicely, as he never mentions the 14 words, or anything else solidly in support of white people, but simply wants to 'not be called a racist,' then I say he is a coward. He knows what is right, but he won't stand up for it. He's too afraid of what people might think. He's as useless as all the rest. In corroboration to this, recently some investigator dredged up comments he'd made on youtube. I have no idea what they were, all I know is Craig Boedeker gave a weaselly answer about how they were 'out of context,' or 'spur of the moment.' It was like the full grown adult was a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. This is a coward's excuse! What he should have said is, "I stand by every damn word, and if you don't like it, show me where I'm wrong. Anywhere. Prove one damn word I wrote is wrong in any way." Or if he really was sorry he said those words, he should have said, "I was wrong and I am sorry." Or if he really was misinterpreted, he should have said, "This is what I meant. Take it or leave it."
The fact that he said none of those things, and continues to hide behind a mask of anti-racism and moderation, just marks him as one more coward. Do you see how hard it is to be a good person, how few and far between real men are? Do you start to see what courage really means?
This is just the beginning. Recently Fjordman has been saying a lot of good things, I commend him for all the progress he's been making towards the truth. But how cowardly of him to say this:
"It is perfectly possible, indeed likely, that there is a large genetic component to culture, which would mean that the continuation and preservation of European civilization can only be accomplished through the preservation of our genetic heritage."
Enough hypotheticals are in there to choke a horse. It is possible that there is a large genetic component? Which would mean, only in that 'likely possibility', that the preservation of European civilization can only be accomplished through the preservation of our genetic heritage. But of course, it's also possible, perhaps even likely, that there is no large genetic component, in which case, oh well! Thanks for that huge vote of support Fjordman!
Fjordman of course knows that twin studies have already definitively shown that genetics are not just 'possible,' but in fact, the case. And the influence is not 'large,' but 'the great majority'. Around 80% of anything that makes you who you are. That adoption studies, where blacks were raised in white homes, had blacks ending up with the same IQ and life outcomes, as their biological parents. And having, get this, a 0% correlation to their adoptive parents. No influence at all! The blacks could have been raised by machines, for all the difference it made! Furthermore, he knows that like all statistics, the larger your sample size, the more fatalistic a situation becomes. Any individual atom can quantum tunnel to who knows where, and display the strangest of traits. But a desk stays in the same place forever, operating under the most basic of newtonian laws. The same is true of societies. Genetics may fail in predicting, perfectly, what any individual will do or be in life. But you can be damn sure that they will never fail in predicting how a society will turn out. With a billion genomes sharing like traits forming an aggregated whole, the truth will out. Africans create Africa. Europeans create Europe. It's that simple. To obfuscate this truth with 'likely,' 'possibly,' 'large influence,' blah blah, is just refusing to stick your flag in the ground and stand by your own words. This way, if anyone challenges him, he can retreat with claims that he's only theorizing and doesn't really know.
It is not just this. Fjordman refuses to endorse any course of conduct. He'll say the right things, but he won't say the 14 words. If not, why not? It's a good question. Is he against securing a future for white children? Is he okay with seeing our race vanish from the face of the earth? Perhaps he is right, perhaps we are entirely powerless to prevent it. Does he not have the moral duty, even once, to at least lodge a PROTEST to this fact? To say, "If I had my way, it would not be this way. I wish something quite other, than what is going to occur." It is a simple vow. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. You either take it or leave it. It doesn't matter if you can never act on it, though I try to act on it every day and would give my life for it the moment it would be of any use. It matters just in saying it. It matters whether you have the balls to say it, or not. Whether you will take any stand, at any point, in your life. Or if you will just let the rising tide sweep over you, with no opposition to it at all. With not a single oath against it. Or for anything.
There is also this cringing cowardice in the statement, that is very subtly put. It's not that Fjordman loves white people. It's not that Fjordman wants to protect white people. No, never! That, of course, would be evil, racist, bigoted, prejudiced, and wrong. No, he just happens to like white civilization. If only we could somehow dispense with these annoying white people, while preserving their civilization, all would be right in the world. But unfortunately, that cannot be, so we must bear with this odious tribe of cancer-cells, for the sake of the civilization they produce.
You cannot separate a people's worth from their production. If a person is beautiful, you cannot love the beauty and think nothing of the person. If a nation is beautiful, you cannot love the beauty and think nothing of the nation. Good things exist only in the people who embody them. He does a disservice to all those white people, whom he admits have produced such a wonderful society, by saying THEY are dispensable, THEY don't matter. Only the fruits of their actions are worth anything. The fruits are indispensable, but the people who produced them can all go to the ovens for all he cares! Is that just? Is that gratitude? Is that his idea of gratitude? You can't thank someone for their performance and then slap them in the face, it just doesn't work that way.
I don't give a fig about European civilization. It has changed a thousand times, and it will change a thousand more. I love white people. There is a difference. I love white people because wherever they are, whoever they are, in whatever era, they are so incredibly better than everyone and everything else. They are more beautiful, more thoughtful, more caring, more successful, more powerful, more ambitious, more everything I love and admire. The greeks, the romans, the germans, the french, the russians, the british, the americans, all of them. Every era. You just look at them and start gushing with admiration and emotion for what incredible feats they managed in their time. Feats of industry, feats of intelligence, feats of strength, sure. But even better, feats of morality, artistry, and sheer divinity.
Whites fought at the Alamo. Whites fought the battle of berlin. Whites fought in stalingrad. Whites fought the battle of britain. Whites fought at the battle of plessy. Whites fought at the battle of blood river. Whites fought at Agincourt on St. Crispin's day. They were all heroes. Their valor, their refusal to surrender, their overcoming -- or being overcome by, hopelessly superior numbers, thrills my heart. I don't care what the state of european civilization was at the time. Virtue is eternal and immutable. Every one of these whites, on every side, were some of the most courageous souls to ever walk the earth. That's courage. If you can't even stand up for your beliefs on an anonymous internet site, if you can't even forthrightly say what you mean, what's in your heart, and stand for something --anything! Any moral principle you believe! Then you aren't worth the pinky finger of a single white warrior who died on any of these battlefields. You are nothing.
Look at the difference between Galileo and Watson! Galileo said, after all his denunciations -- "and yet it moves." And yet it moves! But watson, that vile coward, that despicable cowlick of a man, said he was totally in the wrong, he never meant it, please forgive me, votes for obama, donates to black charities, and practically writhes like a worm on the ground for blacks to love him again. The despicable two-bit whore! He, a nobel prize winner, who has won more nobel prizes in science than the entire black race, has no reason to apologize to anyone! He is better than the entire black race put together! The COWARD. If anyone could have told the truth and been heard, if anyone could have spoken truth to power, it was Him. But he abandoned the truth, he abandoned what he knew was right in his heart, and betrayed all of us. The whole white race may go extinct, women might be mass raped and little children's brains might be smashed against walls, because that worthless slimy coward didn't say what needed to be said when he had the chance.
There's one other group of cowards that immediately come to mind. Anyone who supposedly cares about the white race, but makes every argument on the liberal point of view, the argumentum ad hitlerum. Basically, these moral half wits, who operate from the ENEMY'S POINT OF VIEW, the ENEMY'S MORAL STANDARDS, the very SYSTEM we are trying to demolish, make some ridiculous comparison between Muslims and Nazis, and then prove that Muslims must therefore be evil because if you are in any way, shape or form, related to Nazis in any of the most logically absurd and convoluted ways, then you must be in the wrong. The press is demonizing whites, just like Nazis demonized jews, therefore the press is Nazi and we, whites, are in the right. Africans are discriminating against whites, just like Nazis discriminated against jews, therefore blacks are wrong and whites are in the right. The government is lying, just like Nazis lied about jews, thus the government is wrong and we are in the right. It doesn't matter what the topic is about, these faux-whites will do anything to somehow relate it to the Nazis and throw in their ritualistic condemnation of that 12 year period. They somehow think that if they show they hate Nazis even more than liberals, that if they oppose road construction because Nazis once built roads too, then THEY will be given a pass for THEIR beliefs. The cowardice! The rank treachery!
Guess what, there are a fuck load of similarities between the Nazis and the racists of today! You cannot run away from them, because if you do, you betray yourself!
The nazis didn't want Europe to be flooded with non-white immigrants. Neither do we.
The nazis didn't want unbridled capitalism to leave everyone bankrupt from hyperinflation. Neither do we.
The nazis didn't want german lands occupied by foreigners. Neither do we.
The nazis wanted the german family to be stronger and have more children. So do we.
The nazis wanted to protect the environment. So do we.
The nazis wanted to weed out their simpletons and insane. So do we.
The nazis didn't want communism to turn the whole world into the same killing pens as the USSR. Neither do we.
The nazis were willing to fight for their beliefs. So are we.
So every time you make an argument that undermines the nazis, you undermine yourself. When you make a random reference, a random, hit-and-run, attack on Nazism, all you are doing is cutting the very ground from under your feet. Do you really think that by demonizing a group that has 99% of its policies in common with your own, instead of, say, attacking policies and people we have nothing in common with -- you are making great progress towards the day of liberation? Of course not. It is, rhetorically, the worst argument you could possibly make. Sure, the nazis were wrong about things, maybe even a great many things, but they were white racists. You cannot escape that. In their most fundamental beliefs, they have more in common with us, than practically any other group in history. You cannot escape that. Even bringing up the nazis just makes you wince, because it is the trump card of anti-racists, and anti-whites, everywhere. So why do white racists do it? Because they know they are safe when they vilify nazis. Because they know it is the coward's way out. Say anything you like, so long as you bash a nazi at the end, maybe the liberals will forgive you. maybe society won't ostracize you. maybe you'll earn a few pats on the head by someone, somewhere. Because at least you hate those god damn nazis! Could you pick a weaker target? Could you bully a more hopeless opponent?
In some countries, it's illegal to defend nazis! You must be a real hero, to bash them, when no one is even allowed to speak up in their defense! That takes a lot of courage, boy! In every country, it's socially indefensible, to say anything in defense of the Nazis, so the outcome is the same. You take a swipe at a defenseless, helpless group, and preen like you're some great moral crusader -- you're just a bully. Bullies are cowards. Stand up to the strong of today, oppose the most unopposable group, condemn the most uncondemnable behavior -- then you're a moral crusader. Going after the easiest target on earth, a country, and a system, that was smashed not through weakness, but only through the united force of the entire rest of the planet, who never had a chance to succeed or fail, whose leaders and spokesmen were all executed, whose soldiers died by the millions on the front for something THEY clearly believed in, say what you might, but are no longer here to defend themselves -- GAH! It's craven! Craven! Craven! Who can endure this conduct? And from white racists no less! The ones supposedly on our side!
There is a wonderful quote from some churchman or other: "If I affirm every last position of my Church, if I argue for every single point of doctrine in my faith, save the very one that is currently under attack, I have not confessed Christ."
That's courage. That's the very meaning of courage. You don't waste your time bashing Nazis, because NAZIS AREN'T THE ONES KILLING YOUR RACE. NAZIS AREN'T INVADING AND ENSLAVING YOUR PEOPLE. If you take time to bash nazis, it isn't because nazis are so deserving of your bashing. maybe they are. But the churchman understood that any moral posture on anything, that is not currently under attack, that is not currently under dispute, which is not being threatened by a mass of authority or popularity or faddish nonsense -- is just a moral posture. If you go into the very breach, if you say, for instance, the most unpopular truth that can be possibly confessed in your society, and stand by it like a badger -- only then are you a moral being. Not a moral posture. A true, real man. A man! If the Christians can tell the difference, if Christians can tell hypocrisy from martyrdom, then so can we. By God we should not fall behind any man! We believe the truth, they believed lies, and yet they will sacrifice more for their lies than we will for the Truth! Absurd! But there it is! They will act more True to their Lies, then we will to our Truth! Chew on that, cowards! You are scum! I'm sorry to be associated with you! I hate that we have anything in common! I'd rather have a Christian martyr, a Muslim suicide bomber, or any real man than any of you! They at least follow through on their beliefs -- what is your excuse?
Frankly, I haven't even begun to discuss what true courage is. But I can say this: in all my actions, I have tried to fulfill this pillar of virtue to the last drop. What you see is what you get. I stand by every word I've ever written, even if they contradict each other, and even if they're ridiculously wrong. I stand by them, come what may! And there is nothing I haven't said, for fear of saying it, even though I knew it was true and right. If it's in my heart, it's here to see. And there are very, very few white nationalist pundits, of whom I can say the same. Virtue makes the man. Courage wins the day. What a bunch of rabble we are! As Richard Rahl said in wizard's 6th rule (or was it some other, no matter.) "DESERVE VICTORY."
DESERVE VICTORY. Be the sort of people who deserve to rule, to win, to overcome. To triumph. Be the sort of people who deserve laurel crowns, monuments, and accolades. If not, why not? If you can't deserve victory, what hope do you have of achieving it? If you will not even deserve victory, why should anyone else give it to you? We must deserve victory. We must be the sort of people, that the people can have faith in, celebrate, admire, and love. If we're to have followers, we must deserve them! We must be leaders first! How obvious is this! And yet our 'leaders,' by being cowards instead of men, continue to fail us at every turn. If you don't deserve victory, no one will give it to you. It's that simple. Deserve Victory.
Have some fucking balls.