"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

29 October 2012

On the origin of the word Racist

There is an urban legend that has been floating around for some years now, that the word racist was coined by Leon Trotsky, for the purpose of cowing and intimidating opponents of leftist ideology. In his History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky applied the word racist to Slavophiles, who opposed Communism. 

Just from the word's etymology (the word race with a suffix added) it is not immediately apparent why this word is supposed to be inherently derogatory. Words like anarchist, communist, and fascist have a negative connotation for many people, but that is because of their perspectives on anarchism, communism, and fascism, not because the words are inherently derogatory. The words anarchist, communist, and fascist have objective content toward which one may be positively or negatively disposed. Likewise the word racist. Objectively, it seems to denote somebody for whom race is a concern. 

Is it not possible that Trotsky's use of the word, regardless of what his feelings about racism may have been, was merely descriptive, insofar as the effort of Slavs to assert and preserve their Slavic identity inherently involves a concern with race? Are not racists, as Trotsky regarded them, essentially just a species of anti-Communist, rejecting submersion into nondescript humanity under alien personalities and interests?

Our so-called conservatives in the United States do not ask such questions. If the left uses a term with a negative feeling attached, our conservatives accept that what the term denotes is objectively negative. If leftists and Jew-controlled mass-media disapprove of racists and racism, our so-called conservatives will not dispute that value judgment; for the purpose of rhetoric they will even embrace it. Conservatives outwardly accept that racists and racism are bad, and will not challenge it.

What the conservatives like to do instead of debunking their enemies' assumptions, which are also supported by mass-media, is to try to find a way to throw an accusation back at them, even a ridiculous accusation based on a specious argument and a flimsy premise. (I believe that this preference for responding with accusations, rather than truth and reason, derives from the fact that staying on the attack means not having to clarify one's own position on touchy matters. For somebody trying to win a popularity contest in the short term, rather than inform and educate for the long term, it makes perfect sense to try to keep one's own positions obscure.) The legend that Leon Trotsky coined the word racist offers a basis for that kind of rhetoric. It seems a silly argument, but they will say something like, If you use the word racist then you are a bad person like Communist mass-murderer Leon Trotsky, because he invented that word!

Did Trotsky really invent that word? No, apparently not. The work in which Trotsky is supposed to have coined that word was written and published in Russian in 1930.  I found several examples of the French form, raciste, preceding Trotsky's use of the word by far.

Leftist Use of "Racism" before Trotsky

In Charles Malato's Philosophie de l'Anarchie (1897) we find both raciste and racisme:

Nul doute qu'avant d'arriver à l'internationalisme complet, il y aura une étape qui sera le racisme; mais il y a lieu d'esperer que la halte ne sera pas trop longue, que l'étape sera brûlée. Le communisme qui, au début de son fonctionnement, apparait devoir être fatalement réglementé, surtout au point de vue des échanges internationaux, entrainera la constitution de fédérations racistes (latine, slave, germaine, etc.) L'anarchie qu'on peut entrevoir au bout de deux ou trois générations, lorsque, par suite du développement de la production toute réglementation sera devenue superflue, amènera la fin du racisme et l'avénement d'une humanité sans frontiéres. (p.47)
Charles Malato
TRANSLATION: No doubt that before arriving at complete internationalism, there will be a stage which will be racism; but it must be hoped that the layover will not be too long, that it will be rapidly surpassed. Communism, which appears that it must inevitably be regulated at the beginning of its functioning, especially in regard to international trade, will bring about the establishment of racist federations (Latin, Slavic, Germanic, etc.). Anarchy -- which we can glimpse at the end of two or three generations when, as a result of the development of production, any regulations will have become superfluous -- will bring the end of racism and the advent of a humanity without borders. 

Although Malato was not in favor of racistes or racisme as such, regarding them as constituting an intermediate stage on the path from the destruction of the existing empires to his ideal of global anarchy, his use of those words back in the late 19th century was clearly not polemical but based on their objective content. Malato saw a tendency in Europe toward reorganizing political boundaries and allegiances along racial (or ethnic) lines, and he called this tendency racism. Note also that Malato refers to Pan-Slavism as a form of racism, thus anticipating Trotsky's specific application of the word.

First English Use

A piece for National Public Radio (Gene Demby, "The Ugly, Fascinating History of the Word 'Racism'," 6 January 2014) cites the Oxford English Dictionary to the effect that the first use of the word racism (in English) was by Richard Pratt in 1902, five years after Malato's use of raciste and racisme in French. 

In fact, Pratt had used the word even earlier, at least as early as 1899, in remarks at a conference of the Friends of the Indian.  On that occasion Pratt advocated an approach to destroying "racism and classism." (Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Lake Mohonk Conference of the Friends of the Indian, 1899, publ. 1900)

Pratt was a Baptist religious zealot who was particularly devoted to stamping out the identities of various North American tribes through assimilation. NPR's author for some reason finds it paradoxical that somebody who condemns racism would be trying to stamp out the racial as well as the specific ethnic identities of Cheyenne, Choctaw, or Muscogee, when in fact it is perfectly consistent. Racism in its proper meaning, as we see with Charles Malato and the Occitanian separatists a century ago (contemporary with Pratt), means concern for one's race (however that race is defined), and an impulse to preserve that race, and, in accord with that, organization along racial lines. To condemn racism as such is ultimately to condemn the preservation of any race, with the mongrelization of all mankind, explicitly hoped by some, being the predictable long-term result. Deliberate destruction of races through assimilation and mixture, as advanced -- although in a more direct and obvious manner than we usually see -- by Richard Henry Pratt with his Carlisle Indian Industrial School, is the ultimate implication of  anti-racism. It is remarkable that anyone pretends to be confused about this.

Positive Racism

I find pensée raciste (French for “racist thought”) and individualité raciste (“racist individuality”) in the volume of La Terro d’oc: revisto felibrenco e federalisto (a periodical championing the cultural and ethnic identity of people in southern France) for the year 1906.  Here the word racist was used without a hint of negativity:

Je forme des voeux pour la réussité de vos projets, car je suis persuadé que, dans cette fédération des peuples de Langue d’Oc luttant pour leurs intérêts et l’émancipation de leur pensée raciste, le prestige de Toulouse trouvera son compte. (p. 101)
TRANSLATION: I express my best wishes for the success of your projects, because I am convinced that, in the federation of the peoples of Langue d’Oc fighting for their interests and the emancipation of their racist thought, the prestige of Toulouse will benefit.

Ce malheureux Midi! Il est victime, de toutes les façons! Ruiné, spolié, abruti, c’est un sort de pays vaincu qu’on lui réserve et tout ce qui serait de nature à caractériser son individualité raciste et dont la survivance ou le culte pourrait le faire reprendre conscience de lui-même pour l’arracher à sa torpeur et assurer la sauvegarde de ses intérêts matériels et moraux, est-il bon à autre chose qu’à être combattu et tourné en dérision? (p.68)
Occitanians were proudly racistes in 1906.
TRANSLATION: This unfortunate South! He is a victim in every way! Ruined, robbed, brutalized, it’s a fate of conquered countries that one reserves for him, and whatever would be likely to characterize his racist individuality and whatever’s survival or worship could make him regain consciousness of himself to snatch him from his torpor and safeguard his moral and material interests, is it good for anything except to be combated and ridiculed?

While racists were bad people for Leon Trotsky, some people in Occitania in 1906 did not share that value-judgment, because they had a different perspective and different interests. 

Finally there is the Théorie du Racisme (Theory of Racism) written by a former volunteer of the Légion de Charlemagne, René Binet. He wrote in 1950:

Several years ago, a flag was raised over the world. It is not the flag of a nation, nor that of a party, but the flag of a new breed of men armed with new knowledge and belonging to all the White nations: these men are racists.
The powers of the old world, the adherents of ancient philosophies, the servants of old divinities, have joined forces to combat this type of man and to tear down his emblem.
From now on, everyone anywhere on the globe who opposes the decay of his people, the decline of his race, and enslavement, will be accused of racism and fascism because he took up the flag. 
Thus the time has come for racists to declare openly their will to save those of our values​​ that still can be saved, and to proclaim before the obsolete world that makes an insult of the word racist, what it really means to be racist.

Why should I accept the value-judgments of my enemies? The label racist is only an effective attack if it is perceived as one, which means, only if the value-judgment attached to it is accepted. Don't accept that! If you can stop worrying about being called a racist, if you can refrain from  using a barrage of flaky counterattacks (the way "conservatives" do) to avoid talking about your own real views, then you can be sincere and really communicate with people. You might even have a chance to explain that almost everybody is racist and that it's normal -- which is a fundamental fact that every White person needs to know.

09 October 2012

The Hidden Influence of Historical Revisionism

Certain nationalists in recent years have taken the position that historical revisionism, specifically in regard to the so-called Holocaust, is unworthy of effort. They say that it has not accomplished much.

By what measurement does somebody claim that historical revisionism has not accomplished much when people in positions of authority would never admit being influenced by it? Whatever influence revisionism has had will be largely untraceable.

I think it has had a lot of influence. It seemed to me, when Kofi Annan said at the Durban anti-racist conference in 2001 that the State of Israel should stop using the Holocaust as an excuse, that the fact that the veracity of the Holocaust story had been disputed for many years, with some arguments that are unassailable, very likely lay somewhere behind that statement.

There is a dialectical process that has to be taken into account. When somebody takes the extreme position that there was no Holocaust, others are influenced by that, whether they wish to be influenced or not. Some of them will then say, I am not a Holocaust denier but it does seem to me that there has been some exaggeration, or alternately, I am not a Holocaust-denier but the Jewish exploitation of that story is over the top — which is what the Secretary-General of the United Nations effectively said.

Look at all the Google hits for “I am not a Holocaust-denier but”: 6620 hits for that exact combination of words in the English language.

These people are able to speak more freely because there are “Holocaust-deniers” that have taken the extreme position. That is a major part of the influence of revisionism.

Extreme positions, insofar as they carry any credibility at all, define the limits of discourse. Shocking and upsetting people is part of the dialectical process. This is why it’s wrong to try to cater to people’s sensitivities at the expense of facts and logic (the basis of credibility) as Greggy Johnson has recently advocated, and as Mark Weber has been practicing for some years now.

Rosenberg on Bismarck

The Iron Chancellor, the man who created modern Germany, acted imprudently where Jews were concerned.

Bismarck, the German Reich, and the Jews

Alfred Rosenberg
(Völkischer Beobachter, 22 May 1921)

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2012 

The birthday of the Iron Chancellor was reverently observed in all parts of Germany even in 1921. Now that his work lies in heaps of rubble, having been smashed by criminal hands, perhaps a light begins gradually to dawn, even for the most idiotic democrat of German blood, over the greatness of the still so recent German past. Not to mention the righteous individuals who from the very start were unable, thanks to Professor Preuss from Jerusalem[1], to regard the Republic as a German Reich.

But as we look up respectfully to the image of Bismarck, must we guard ourselves against making this image into an idol. We shall always need the advice of the great chancellor. Many of his principles will be standard even in the more distant future of Germany. At the same time however we shall retain in memory his dictum: “Politics is not an exact science. As the situation that one has before oneself changes, so does the way to make use of it.” Above all however we must often admit that the man who built the German house simultaneously allowed the woodworm to enter into the timbers of this house. This sad fact should not be concealed. Bismarck once entrusted German history to a Jewish banker, allowed him influence in Germany’s foreign policy, and brought his daughter to the Imperial Court, therewith taking a stand against old German tradition.

By sentiment Bismarck was an outspoken anti-Semite. He complained once to a delegation that almost the entire opposition press was in the hands of Jews. About Jewish profiteering he spoke powerful words in the Prussian parliament, and everyone knows his statement that it would be hard for him to fulfill his duties if he had a Jewish superior. It must be considered moreover that Bismarck was faced with a Prussian parliament whose members he fittingly described as “individually rational, collectively stupid,” that in the most important affairs of the nation he found himself alone, and that for the most pressing needs of the state[2] no credits were granted to him. Thus he went to the Jew Bleichroeder[3]. He went not in the manner of a Mediaeval king, who would have taken back from the Jews for state purposes the money profiteered from the people; rather, as the minister of a modern “constitutional government” he contracted a loan with the Jew – and even paid high interest for it. That was the beginning of the conversion of the state into a trust, which today, through the 500 Jewish banks in Germany, has grown into an enormous affair. In foreign policy Bismarck likewise not infrequently intervened for the benefit of the Jews. Emblematic of that were the development of the Jewish Question in Romania and the negotiations over Jewish enfranchisement in the Balkans at the Congress of Berlin (1878).

In Romania, around the middle of the 19th century, the Jewish population had grown enormously. Usury, intermediary commerce, liquor-selling: all these essential symptoms of Jewish penetration through consecutive millennia became ever more palpable. All who loved their homeland and their folk demanded a remedy for this plague of spongers numbering 300,000 heads. Thirty-one delegates made an exemplary proposal to the parliament; disturbances occurred in Iaşi and other cities [in Romania]. The “Alliance israélite” naturally cried bloody murder about “massacres of Jews,” although not a single Hebrew had been killed; they wanted foreign intervention and sent outraged protests to all governments. Bismarck did not set himself against the financiers in Paris and London, but wrote to Mr. Crémieux, president of the Alliance and simultaneously Grand Master of Grand Orient Freemasonry in France: “I have the honor to report to you, as an answer to the letter that you sent me on the 4th of the current month, that the Kaiser’s government has advised its representative in Bucharest to exhaust all his influence to secure for your co-religionists in Romania the position that  belongs to them in a country that conducts itself according to the principles of humanity and civilization, etc. Berlin, 2 February 1868, v. Bismarck.”

As however the mood in Romania seemed to become such that the protection-laws against the Jews had a prospect of being enacted, the Berlin Jewish community got involved with a written petition to the Prussian minister-president. And to that came the following answer: “Berlin, 18 April 1868. The king has instructed me to respond to the petition of the Jewish community of the 6th of this month, so as to oppose the approval by one of the Romanian chambers of a law, which had been submitted against the will of Prince Carol, that affects the situation of the Israelites. It does not seem that it will be approved, nor that it will be sanctioned by the government of the prince even if that does happen…. Count v. Bismarck.”

In this document Bismarck did not deal with particular cases and express reservations in another passage just in case; instead he fundamentally acknowledged the principle of gray liberalism, “humanity and civilization,” which he had to battle domestically, as the basis for acknowledgment of Jewish “equal rights.”

Even more illustrative are the negotiations about the Jewish Question at the Berlin Congress. Here the symptoms of the rule of Jewish finance, allied with liberal rhetoric, manifested themselves tangibly.

The Alliance sent three of its members to Berlin: Netter, Kann, and Veneziani. All assembled ambassadors were sent a long memorandum, plus works of Jewish writers about the Jewish Question.

In his history of the Alliance the Jew Leven says: “Before the meeting of the Congress they (our delegates) secured the support of a significant man in Berlin: Bleichroeder, who through his social position had a bond with the plenipotentiaries and enjoyed great prestige with Bismarck.” (Narcisse Leven, Cinquante Ans d’Histoire, Paris 1911, p. 203.)

Netter sent reports about the activities of the Jewish representatives to Paris. Here are some of the most interesting. From 11 June: “If all think about our coreligionists as does Monsieur de Saint-Vallier (the French plenipotentiary) we have it made.” 12 June: “Lord Beaconsfield is in a splendid mood.” 13 June: “Bleichroeder yesterday saw Prince Bismarck; he has best wishes for the Israelites.” 18 June: “Today we visited the Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfuerst. He began his career with the defense of the Jews in Bavaria; he would like to crown it with the defense of them at the Congress.” 21 June: “Bleichroeder spoke with Bismarck yesterday and obtained certainty that the question will be laid before the congress…. He can rest assured.” The reports about a series of other visits with diplomats, representatives of the press, etc., read similarly. (Leven,  pp. 213-216).

All Balkan states and their internal constitutions came under discussion. The extent to which negotiations were conducted for the benefit of the Jews becomes obvious just from the fact that the term “Bulgarian subject” was unanimously replaced with “residents of the Bulgarian principate.” That was the theoretical surrender of the principle of patriotism in favor of a nomadic worldview! This change was proposed of course by the puppets of the Alliance, the French. Thus Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania were forced by liberal Europe into recognition of the “rights” of the Jews. To the honor of Russia, it must be said that her plenipotentiary, Prince Gorchakov, was the only opponent of this disastrous policy. It goes without saying that D’Israeli-Beaconsfield placed the whole weight of Great Britain on the balance for the Jews. He pushed forward Lord Russel and Lord Salisbury as his spokesmen, but he himself said that he considered the granting of equal rights to Jews as the fulfillment of a self-evident fact, without the sanction of which the Congress certainly should not dissolve. Herr von Bülow[4] said to Netter on 28 July that the demand of the Jews in Bulgaria would also be pleaded in regard to Serbia and Romania, and that it was “a question of principle.” Bismarck declared precisely the same. The Jews could be content. 

It would be well to note the words of the historian of the Alliance: “The result of the Berlin Congress was significant: it introduced into international law the principles which the French Revolution set down in its Declaration of the Rights of Man. United Europe approved it…. It is accomplished that these principles have become by the will of Europe the basis of public law and of the new states, and the condition of their independence. It was a benefit for all peoples, and for Jewry, an act unique in its history, the official charter of its liberation.” (Leven, p.290.)

The president of the Congress of Berlin was Prince Bismarck. 

Perhaps he felt that he was strong enough to keep Germany internally free. In foreign policy he aided Jewry in a disastrous manner instead of allying himself with Gorchakov, putting aside the fact that he and the Russian otherwise faced each other as enemies. But he must have seen that Bleichroeder and Mendelssohn, through the strengthening of Jewry abroad, significantly shored up their position within Germany, and thenceforth wielded more than twice as much monetary clout. When the great chancellor was gone and little men stepped into his place, the affairs having been commenced followed their necessary course: the political and economic guides of the “German” Reich became Bleichroeder, Mendelssohn, Friedländer, Ballin, Warburg, Rathenau, and so on. Thus went Germany from Versailles to … Versailles![5]

One of the most righteous men, Paul de Lagarde, wrote in 1881, still bitter: “There has never been a German state.” Unfortunately he was right. Even Bismarck's state was still not a German state.

Is it Bismarck’s fault? No one will dare to affirm it. He accomplished something superhuman. He was full of confidence in the strength of Germandom. Should one reproach this man, for whom all small minds made life unpleasant enough, with the fact that he overestimated German national consciousness? That the Germans – let it be plainly said – proved themselves unworthy? Furthermore that they themselves did not lift a hand to assist in building the German house, instead of bickering with slogans or surrendering to the god Mammon? No, certainly not! 

We ourselves have been guilty, who were not able to endure a great personality, and either cowered behind him or took pleasure in petty fault-finding. Thus the Jew was able to sow discord unhindered, preach class-struggle, and engage in profiteering. We do not wish to condemn Bismarck, but perhaps to highlight the place where the blueprint of the German Reich had an error in its floorplan. It is up to us to avoid it in the future.
1. Hugo Preuss, who wrote the constitution of the Weimar Republic, was not literally from Jerusalem, but he was a Jew. Rosenberg is saying that right-thinking people cannot regard the Republic as truly German because a Jew wrote its constitution.
2. The Prussian Parliament never approved a budget in the years 1862 to 1866 because of disagreement over military reforms. The Seven Weeks' War with Austria came in 1866.
3.  Gerson Bleichroeder was a Jewish banker of Berlin with connections to the Rothschilds. He was the second Jew elevated to the Prussian nobility, thus becoming "von Bleichroeder." The first Jew elevated to the Prussian nobility was also a banker.
4. Bernhard von Bülow was attaché to the German embassy in Paris and served as a secretary at the Congress of Berlin. Later, during the reign of Wilhelm II,  he served several years as foreign minister, then as chancellor.
5. This is a reference to the fact that the King Wilhelm I of Prussia was proclaimed Emperor of Germany in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles -- on French soil -- during the Franco-Prussian War, and to the humiliating Treaty of Versailles (called the Dictate of Versailles by German nationalists). Thus a period of German dominance on the European mainland began and ended at Versailles.