If you haven't read Mr. Nowicki's article yet, here it is:
"Does white plus might make right?



To the editor ...

Pointing out outrages to the heaped-upon and then urging them to be ruthless in turn is not inconsistent and it doesn't itself make anyone a thug anymore than employing high-tech weaponry against high-tech weaponry, instead throwing rocks at it, does.

Also, and I may be wrong on this but I urge Mr. Nowicki to look it up, I don't think that Hitler ever endorsed the "right" of the victor to do as he pleases but simply observed that all victors assume such in practice, often at the very time they denounce it in theory. Perhaps Mr. Nowicki was referring to this statement of Hitler's: "Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong." Do governments and their military forces ever operate on a different assumption?

Lastly, there have never been forces as brutal and merciless as those directed by Jews, whether in the Old Testament, in Bolshevik Russia, or in the United States. Count the bodies. Compared to these, "brutal" and "Hitler" don't belong in the same sentence.

In my opinion, men who are brutes are also thugs, unless they are men confronted with brutality, in which case thugs slink away while men do whatever is called for, including being brutal. Our Jews have shown their mercilessness, and the stakes are high:

"If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the jew is victorious over the peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind and this planet will — as it once did for millions of years — move through the ether devoid of men." — Adolf Hitler

Max Gregg
April 7, 2004

Mr. Nowicki replies

Mr. Gregg fairly well begs the question of what is meant by "ruthless."

Allow me to make a distinction between proper and improper ruthlessness. If someone is attacking your wife and you do not ruthlessly repel the attacker in every way possible, you are less than a man. However, if after repelling (that is, killing) your attacker, you decide to start randomly targeting others who physically resemble the attacker, on the pretext of defending your family, then you have slipped outside the bounds of justifiable vengeance.

When Mr. Gregg states that "men do whatever is called for, including being brutal," I wonder who is doing the calling, and why. I'm also not sure what my correspondent includes under the general umbrella of the called-for "brutality," as he offers no specifics. Would he condone an event such as the Wichita Massacre, if it were done in reverse, with white perpetrators and black victims?

From where I am standing, there is simply no excuse, ever, for the torture, rape, and murder of the innocent, no matter how exalted one's aims in committing such acts. I hold both Nazis and Communists to account for their crimes, and I won't be a supporter of any future ideology whose believers intend to engage in such atrocities.

Like many, of course, I am appalled at the prevalent, fashionable habit of retrospective anti-Western victimology, in which whites are always made to come across as the bad guys of history, while numerous past and present atrocities against whites go ignored. When Mel Gibson talks about the deliberate starvation of the Ukrainian population by Stalin as something on the same level as the Nazis' actions against Jews, he is called anti-Semitic, but nobody who emphasizes the Jewish Holocaust to the exclusion of the Ukrainian Holocaust is ever called "anti-Ukrainian" (not that many people have lost their jobs or been stigmatized from polite society for expressing "anti-Ukrainianism"!).

For all that, I think it's obvious that there are good and bad people within every race and every ethnicity. There are good and bad Jews, good and bad Ukrainians, good and bad whites, blacks, and Asians. Fair-minded people of all types know right from wrong.

I would submit to Mr. Gregg that our problem today does not stem from the machinations of Jews, as he seems to believe. Even if many prominent Jews are incorrigible anti-Christian, anti-gentile bigots, they wouldn't be able to make hay with their rhetoric if it weren't for the spiritual degeneracy of the white Western world, which seems eager to bring about its own demise, either through low birth rates or through perpetual self-flagellation over past misdeeds. To paraphrase Shakespeare: "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our Jews, but in ourselves."

April 7, 2004

Strakon comments

Mr. Gregg quotes Hitler: "Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong." And then asks, Do governments and their military forces ever operate on a different assumption?

My answer is: No, they don't. And that's one reason I'm an anarchist, and proud of it.

April 7, 2004

Mr. Nowicki writes: "Are figures such as Napoleon, Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler to be shunned as tyrants (even if the Communists were worse), as Sobran would maintain? Or are they to be hailed as saviors, providing a useful example to follow, even if we may disagree with them on particulars, as Dickson seemed to be saying?"

To quote a friend of mine who heard Sam Dickson's speech, "People always assume that the man on the white horse will be one of their own. There's no reason to think that, and there's no reason to think the horse will be white."

Ronn Neff
Senior editor, TLD
April 7, 2004

"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." Christ turned his back on that and so should we.

Morley Evans
April 7, 2004

To Mr. Nowicki's original article.

Home page and TOC.