Niflson responds to Linder
Last month during the second hour of Carolyn Yeager’s radio show, Severus Niflson convincingly rebutted Alex Linder’s libertarian stance against fascism and, although Niflson didn’t mention it, I believe his critique also applies to Greg Johnson’s “New Right” philosophy.
I cannot write shorthand, so forgive me the errors in the following transcriptions of the interview. Specifically addressing what Linder wrote, Niflson said that he, Niflson, is a militarist; and that we cannot have a State without centralization “because it won’t function.”
After a peroration on political sciences, Niflson rephrased Max Weber’s definition of the State: “The State is simply a territory with the monopoly of power,” that is to say, the monopoly of the use of force. Yes, the government runs the State but is not the State.
After Niflson mentioned Bakunin’s critique of Marx he responded to Yeager’s question about clarifying his previous statement that he was a militarist:
“I believe in the esthetics, and I believe in the morality, and I believe in the functionality of military power and of a militarized State. And of course: our ancestors did it historically. Even the modest tribes had basically a war chief, the monopoly of force. The culture of the tribe would be militarized [emphasis in Niflson’s voice]. Everything was focused on making spears, making knives, making swords.”
Using the words “structure” and “hierarchy,” he added that “a glorious thing to do is a militarized society,” and that every State worth of something was militarized; even Bismarck who was not a military guy dressed like one. We never made statues to laypeople but of knights on horses because that’s the only way a nation can defend itself. And there’s the rub:
“Militarism requires strong centralization in the sense that you require the government to focus militaristically on values of marshal heroism.”
That’s why, Niflson added, we are attracted to the military esthetics of National Socialism. After an input by Carolyn, Niflson claimed that libertarians wanted:
“A civilian society of consumers and basic chronic relaxation—in other words: America.”
This, even though the US used to be far more stoic in the past. It is making now a transition toward a bourgeoisie civil society where:
“Civilians make every decision; civilians think everything; civilians decide everything and militarism is related to fighting wars that civilians decide should be fought.”
And it’s far worse today since not even civilian Anglo-Saxons but Jews are ultimately deciding which war must be fought. Nevertheless, Niflson added:
“You cannot have a society without the mechanism of war. Libertarians tend to forget that without militarist ideology you cannot survive—especially us [nationalists after the ethno-state is formed] who will be attacked by everyone.”
And he added that in an ethno-state even the engineers and the architects would wear militarized uniforms because “everything they do they do for military objectives” —i.e., we will have to fight to survive for a long time.
“Every male would have to be ready to pick up a rifle and fight. Because I am a militarist I cannot agree with this naïve libertarianism, which is somehow Utopian—this idea that without a centralized State we can survive.
I have always said that the dynamics of power require structures of power, and the structures of power are militarism. Successful nations are militarized; that’s the truth.”
Keep in mind Egypt, Mesopotamia, Athens, Sparta and Rome. An hypothetical nation of anarchists would easily lose before an organized nation of fascists in a war between the two nations. After Carolyn wrought the subject of Linder’s views again, Niflson added:
“It’s because he is thinking in a non-military context. He is thinking like a civilian. Most of these libertarians believe in pluralism, because we live in a pluralistic society. But at least in the first hundred years we won’t have the luxury of being pluralistic at all.”
Which reminds me of course what the Führer said so clearly during his intimate table talks. Niflson continues:
“We will have to be single-minded, highly structured, hierarchical—and militarized—to be able to survive. We can’t be pluralistic. We can’t have multiple groups bargaining for power in your own nation state…”
This evokes Johnson’s plain antipathy toward NS-like totalitarianism as a template for the coming ethno-state.
“…because the State is the monopoly of the use of force. And that means that others will have to submit.”
After another comment of Carolyn, Niflson added:
“This country [the US] is a civilian democracy of lazy welfare queens. It is a nation of consumers—fat consumers that all they want is to be entertained and satisfied…”
That’s why they don’t want to live in a dictatorship, but be free:
“…inject themselves with garbage; get drunk, etc. These are the types of liberties that are desired.”
After some minutes Carolyn brought back the subject of Linder again. Niflson answered:
“The only effective way is to grow and centralize Federal power; grow and centralize, grow and centralize.”
I guess he said this to confront Linder’s idea of mere “White mania” after whites win their right to an ethno-state, insofar the State would go:
“…after your children, put in them a rifle and say you’ll fight today.”
Linder’s idea—and I’d add Johnson’s stance against genocide as well—is a fantasy because in a new civilization everything is about war; in a federal world these libertarians (or New Righters) won’t have any say on it, no participation in the power of the State. Niflson then satirizes these ideologies:
“I won the war [the creation of an ethno-state] but I’ll make myself weaker. I’ll go for communes and people will run these communes; they will have chickens there.”
Carolyn then made the insightful remark that in the US everyone is afraid of collectivism, that they are even afraid of the word “collective.” But in the past of the US the people had a collectivist vision. Not today adds Niflson, because:
“…people are retreating into their homes, retreating into their fantasies and they don’t want to come out.”
If we are in a middle of a war and a successful nation has been built, the whole point is not “to be a Man” (to use Linder’s term) but simply to win, and that just cannot happen in a pluralistic society insofar as every child will have to be indoctrinated.
Niflson echoing Michael O’Meara:
“Every nation has a myth. The population will grow with this myth and this myth will become reality.”
Though we can speculate about the coming myth, no one knows it because it is a myth that will develop in a given moment. In one of his last thoughts about libertarianism, Niflson added that the majority of us are libertarians, but that it is a delusion because we are all living:
“…under an invisible tyranny: the tyranny of entertainment and consumption, because we are basically forced into our homes; we didn’t want to get out.”
And that fantasy-world is precisely the tyranny, the Matrix that controls us: a fear of the real world.