Liberalism, 2

by Francis Parker Yockey

Imperium Eagle

From its anthropology of the basic goodness of human nature in general, Rationalism produced 18th century Encyclopedism, Freemasonry, Democracy, and Anarchism, as well as Liberalism, each with its offshoots and variations. Each played its part history of the 19th century, and, owing to the critical distortion of the whole Western civilization entailed by the first World Wars, even in the 20th century, where Rationalism is grotesquely out of place, and slowly transformed itself into Irrationalism. The corpse of Liberalism was not even interred by the middle of the 20th century. Consequently it is necessary to diagnose even now the serious illness of the Western Civilization as Liberalism complicated with alien-poisoning.

Because Liberalism views most men as harmonious, or good, it follows that they should be allowed to do as they like. Since there is no higher unit to which all are tied, and whose super-personal life dominates the lives of the individuals, each field of human activity serves only itself—as long as it does not wish to become authoritative, and stays within the framework of “society.” Thus Art becomes “Art for Art’s sake,” l’art pour l’art. All areas of thought and action become equally autonomous. Religion becomes mere social discipline, since to be more is to assume authority. Science, philosophy, education, all are equally worlds unto themselves. None are subject to anything higher. Literature and technics are entitled to the same autonomy. The function of the State is merely to protect them by patents and copyrights. But above all—economics and law are independent of organic authority, i.e., of politics.

Twenty-first century readers will find it difficult to believe that once the idea prevailed that each person should be free to do as he pleased in economic matters, even if his personal activity involved the starvation of hundreds of thousands, the devastation of entire forest and mineral areas, and the stunting of the power of the organism; that it was quite permissible for such an individual to raise himself above the weakened public authority, and to dominate, by private means, the inmost thoughts of whole populations by his control of press, radio and mechanized drama.

They will find it more difficult yet to understand how such a person could go to the law to enforce his destructive will. Thus a usurer could, even in the middle of the 20th century, invoke successfully the assistance of the law in dispossessing any numbers of peasants and farmers. It is hard to imagine how any individual could injure the political organism more than by thus mobilizing the soil into dust, in the phrase of the great Freiherr von Stein.

But—this followed inevitably from the idea of the independence of economics and law from political authority. There is nothing higher, no State; it is only individuals against one another. It is but natural that the economically more astute individuals accumulate most of the mobile wealth into their hands. They do not however, if they are true Liberals, want authority with this wealth, for authority has two aspects: power, and responsibility. Individualism, psychologically speaking, is egoism. “Happiness” = selfishness. Rousseau, the grandfather of Liberalism, was a true individualist, and sent his five children to the foundling hospital [see Chechar's footnote below].*

Law, as a field of human thought and endeavor, has as much independence, and as much dependence as every other field. Within the organic framework, it is free to think and organize its material. But like other forms of thought, it can be enrolled in the service of outside ideas. Thus law, originally the means of codifying and maintaining the inner peace of the organism by keeping order and preventing private disputes from growing, was transmuted by Liberal thought into a means of keeping inner disorder, and allowing economically strong individuals to liquidate the weaker ones. This was called the “rule of law,” the “law-State,” “independence of the judiciary.” The idea of bringing in the law to make a given state of affairs sacrosanct was not original with Liberalism. Back in Hobbes’s day, other groups were trying it, but the incorruptible mind of Hobbes said with the most precise clarity that the rule of law rule means the rule of those who determine and administer the law, that the rule of a “higher order” is an empty phrase, and is only given content by the concrete rule of given men and groups over a lower order.

This was political thinking, which is directed to the distribution and movement of power. It is also politics to expose the hypocrisy, immorality and cynicism of the usurer who demands the rule of law, which means riches to him and poverty to millions of others, and all in the name of something higher, something with supra-human validity. When Authority resurges once more against the forces of Rationalism and Economics, it proceeds at once to show that the complex of transcendental ideals with which Liberalism equipped itself is as valid as the Legitimism of the era of Absolute Monarchy, and no more. The Monarchs were the strongest protagonists of Legitimism, the financiers of Liberalism.

But the monarch was tied to the organism with his whole existence, he was responsible organically even where he was not responsible in fact. Thus Louis XVI and Charles I. Countless other monarchs and absolute rulers have had to flee because of their symbolic responsibility. But the financier has only power, no responsibility, not even symbolic, for, as often as not, his name is not generally known. History, Destiny, organic continuity, Fame, all exert their powerful influence on an absolute political ruler, and in addition his position places him entirely outside the sphere of base corruptibility. The financier, however, is private, anonymous, purely economic, irresponsible. In nothing can he be altruistic; his very existence is the apotheosis of egoism. He does not think of History, of Fame, of the furtherance of the life of the organism, of Destiny, and furthermore he is eminently corruptible by base means, as his ruling desire is for money and ever more money.

In his contest against Authority the finance-Liberal evolved a theory that power corrupts men. It is, however, vast anonymous wealth which corrupts, since there are no superpersonal restraints on it, such as bring the true statesman completely into of the service of the political organism, and place him above corruption.

It was precisely in the fields of economics and law that the Liberal doctrine had the most destructive effects on the health of the Western Civilization. It did not matter much that esthetics became independent, for the only art-form in the West which still had a future, Western Music, paid no attention to theories and continued on its grand creative course to its end in Wagner and his epigones. Baudelaire is the great symbol l’art pour l’art: sickness as beauty. Baudelaire is thus Liberalism in literature, disease as a principle of Life, crisis as health, morbidity as soul-life, disintegration as purpose. Man as individualist, an atom without connections, the Liberal ideal of personality. It was in fields of action rather than of thought that the injury was the greatest.

Allowing the initiative in economic and technical matters to rest with individuals, subject to little political control, resulted in the creation of a group of individuals whose personal wills were more important than the collective destiny of the organism and the millions of the population. The law which served this state of affairs was completely divorced from morality and honor. To disintegrate the organism from the spiritual side, what morality was recognized was divorced from metaphysics and religion and related only to “society.” The criminal law reflected finance-Liberalism by punishing crimes of violence and passion, but not classifying such things as destroying national resources, throwing millions into want, or usury on a national scale.

The independence of the economic sphere was a tenet of faith with Liberalism. This was not subject to discussion. There was even evolved an abstraction named “economic man,” whose actions could be predicted as though economics were a vacuum. Economic gain was his sole motive, greed alone spurred him on. The technic of success was to concentrate on one’s own gain and ignore everything else. This “economic man” was however man in general to the Liberals. He was the unit of their world-picture. “Humanity” was the sum total of these economic grains of sand.

_____________

(*) In his searing exposé of Rousseau, Paul Johnson comments that the newborns of this extremely self-righteous scoundrel with all probability died in the foundling house. For installments 1 and 3 of this article, see here and here.

Liberalism, 1

by Francis Parker Yockey

Imperium Eagle

Liberalism is a most important by-product of Rationalism, and its origins and ideology must be clearly shown.

The “Enlightenment” period of Western history which… set in after the Counter-Reformation laid more and more stress on intellect, reason and logic as it developed. By the middle of the 18th century this tendency produced Rationalism. Rationalism regarded all spiritual values as its objects and proceeded to revalue them from the standpoint of “reason.” Inorganic logic is the faculty men have always used for solving problems of mathematics, engineering, transportation, physics and in other non-valuing situations. Its insistence on identity and rejection of contradiction are practicable in material activity. They afford intellectual satisfaction also in matters of purely abstract thought, like mathematics and logic, but if pursued far enough they turn into mere techniques, simple assumptions whose only justification is empirical. The end of Rationalism is Pragmatism, the suicide of Reason.

This adaptation of reason to material problems causes all problems whatever to become mechanical when surveyed in “the light of reason,” without any mystical admixture of thought or tendency whatever. Descartes reasoned the animals into automata, and a generation or so later, man himself was rationalized into an automaton—or equally, an animal. Organisms became problems in chemistry and physics, and superpersonal organism[s] simply no longer existed, for they are not amenable to reason, not being visible or measurable. Newton provided the universe of stars with a non-spiritual self-regulating force; the next century removed the spirit from man, his history and his affairs.

Reason detests the inexplicable, the mysterious, the half-light. In a practical problem in machinery or ship-building one must feel that all the factors are under his knowledge and control. There must be nothing unpredictable or out of control. Rationalism, which is the feeling that everything is subject to and completely explicable by Reason, consequently rejects everything not visible and calculable. If a thing actually cannot be calculated, Reason merely says that the factors are so numerous and complicated that in a purely practical way they render the calculation unfeasible, but do not make it theoretically impossible. Thus Reason also has its Will-to-Power: whatever does not submit is pronounced recalcitrant, or is simply denied existence.

When it turned its gaze to History, Rationalism saw the whole tendency as one toward Reason. Man was “emerging” during all those millennia, he was progressing from barbarism and fanaticism to enlightenment, from “superstition” to “science,” from violence to “reason,” from dogma to “criticism,” from darkness to light. No more invisible things, no more spirit, no more soul, no more God, no more Church and State. The two poles of thought are “the individual” and “humanity.” Anything separating them is “irrational.”

This branding of things as irrational is in fact correct. Rationalism must mechanize everything, and whatever cannot be mechanized is of necessity irrational. Thus the entirety of History becomes irrational: its chronicles, its processes, its secret force, Destiny. Rationalism itself, as a by-product of a certain stage in the development of a High Culture, is also irrational. Why Rationalism follows one spiritual phase, why it exercises its brief sway, why it vanishes once more into religion—these questions are historical, thus irrational.

Liberalism is Rationalism in politics. It rejects the State as an organism, and can only see it as the result of a contract between individuals. The purpose of Life has nothing to do with States, for they have no independent existence. Thus the “happiness” of “the individual” becomes the purpose of Life. Bentham made this as coarse as it could be made in collectivizing it into “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” If herding-animals could talk, they would use this slogan against the wolves. To most humans, who are the mere material of History, and not actors in it, “happiness” means economic well being. Reason is quantitative, not qualitative, and thus makes the average man into “Man.” “Man” is a thing of food, clothing, shelter, social and family life, and leisure. Politics sometimes demands sacrifice of life for invisible things. This is against “happiness,” and must not be. Economics, however, is not against “happiness,” but is almost co-extensive with it. Religion and Church wish to interpret the whole of Life on the basis of invisible things, and so militate against “happiness.” Social ethics, on the other hand, secure economic order, thus promote “happiness.”

Here Liberalism found its two poles of thought: economics and ethics. They correspond to individual and humanity. The ethics of course is purely social, materialistic; if older ethics is retained, its former metaphysical foundation is forgotten, and it is promulgated as a social, and not a religious, imperative. Ethics is necessary to maintain the order necessary as a framework for economic activity. Within that framework, however, “individual” must be “free.” This is the great cry of Liberalism, “freedom.” Man is only himself, and is not tied to anything except by choice. Thus “society” is the “free” association of men and groups. The State, however, is un-freedom, compulsion, violence. The Church is spiritual un-freedom.

All things in the political domain were transvalued by Liberalism. War was transformed into either competition, seen from the economic pole, or ideological difference, seen from ethical pole. Instead of the mystical rhythmical alternation of war and peace, it sees only the perpetual concurrence of competition or ideological contrast, which in no case becomes hostile or bloody. The State becomes society or humanity on the ethical side, a production and trade system on the economic side. The will to accomplish a political aim is transformed into the making of a program of “social ideals” on the ethical side, of calculation on the economic side. Power becomes propaganda, ethically speaking, and regulation, economically speaking.

The purest expression of the doctrine of Liberalism was probably that of Benjamin Constant. In 1814 he set forth his views “progress” of “man.” He looked upon the 18th century Enlightenment with its intellectualistic-humanitarian cast as merely preliminary to the true liberation, that of the 19th century. Economics, industrialism, and technics represented the means of “freedom.” Rationalism was the natural ally of this trend. Feudalism, Reaction, War, Violence, State, Politics, Authority—all were overcome by the new idea, supplanted by Reason, Economics, Freedom, Progress and Parliamentarism. War, being violent and brutal, was unreasonable, and is replaced by Trade, which is intelligent and civilized. War is condemned from every standpoint: economically it is a loss even to the victor. The new war technics—artillery—made personal heroism senseless, and thus the charm and glory of war departed with its economic usefulness. In earlier times, war-peoples had subjugated trading-peoples, but no longer. Now trading-peoples step out as the masters of the earth.

A moment’s reflection shows that Liberalism is entirely negative. It is not a formative force, but always and only a disintegrating force. It wishes to depose the twin authorities of Church and State, substituting for them economic freedom and social ethics. It happens that organic realities do not permit of more than the two alternatives: the organism can be true to itself, or it becomes sick and distorted, a prey for other organisms. Thus the natural polarity of leaders and led cannot be abolished without annihilating the organism. Liberalism was never entirely successful in its fight against the State, despite the fact that it engaged in political activity throughout the 19th century in alliance with every other type of Stated-disintegrating force. Thus there were National-Liberals, Social-Liberals, Free-Conservatives, Liberal-Catholics. They allied themselves with democracy, which is not Liberal, but irresistibly authoritarian in success. They sympathized with Anarchists when the forces of Authority sought to defend themselves against them. In the 20th century, Liberalism joined Bolshevism in Spain, and European and American Liberals sympathized with Russian Bolsheviks.

Liberalism can only be defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word “freedom” is a negative—it means in fact, freedom from authority, i.e., disintegration of the organism. In its last stages it produces social atomism in which not only the authority of the State is combated, but even the authority of society and the family. Divorce takes equal rank with marriage, children with parents. This constant thinking in negatives caused political activists like Lorenz V. Stein and Ferdinand Lasalle to despair of it as a political vehicle. Its attitudes were always contradictory, it sought always a compromise. It sought always to “balance” democracy against monarchy, managers against hand-workers, State against Society, legislative against judicial. In a crisis, Liberalism as such was not to be found. Liberals found their way on to one or the other side of a revolutionary struggle, depending on the consistency of their Liberalism, and its degree of hostility to authority.

Thus Liberalism in action was just as political as any State ever was. It obeyed organic necessity by its political alliances with non-Liberal groups and ideas. Despite its theory of individualism, which of course would preclude the possibility that one man or group could call upon another man or group for the sacrifice or risk of life, it supported “unfree” ideas like Democracy, Socialism, Bolshevism, Anarchism, all of which demand life- sacrifice.

Trainspotter on Buchanan

Last year on the Occidental Observer Trainspotter said:

 

pat-buchanan

I can’t help having a bit of a soft spot for Buchanan. In some ways, I cut my political teeth as a teen by watching Crossfire back in the 80’s, and more importantly reading his column in my local paper. He was certainly a skilled debater and gifted writer, and while my own path soon led to the diversion of libertarianism, there is no question that Buchanan influenced me, and all things considered, for the better.

I particularly appreciated that his columns were laced with historical and literary allusions. As a teen in the pre-internet age, these references were invaluable to me and an important part of my education. It really set him apart from other columnists, as he captured the majesty of civilization in a seamless flow. Whatever one may think of Buchanan, he saw the world through rich historical eyes. For me, that was probably his greatest contribution.

Whatever punches he may have pulled, he was one of the few in the 80’s mainstream press that offered any substance at all. As time marched on, he became not merely one of the few, but the only. Now there are none.

With our “precious” freedom of the press, there is today not a single commentator in the mainstream that will advocate for whites at all. Not one.

Mainstream conservatism is unabashedly hostile to us and our worldview.

Of course, it’s possible that Buchanan will get another gig, and presumably he’ll continue his column for a time. The internet ensures that if he wants a voice, he can have at least a bit of one. But he’s no longer the vigorous firebrand of years gone by. He’s an old man now, and any comeback would simply amount to a swan song. Even if that happens, it would not alter the symbolic importance of what has transpired.

The real story, as Buchanan himself has more or less said, is not that he changed, but that America changed. Just a few decades ago, he probably represented the Silent Majority. I remember, as a kid in the 70’s and 80’s, when all white adults were politically incorrect, to put it mildly. This in a fairly prosperous, well educated and all white suburb.

But now, that world is gone. The people have been trained well, and even if they disagree with the PC orthodoxy, they know to keep it to themselves. And the all white suburbs of yore are now multiracial. Miscegenation is common, and white children few.

It’s a world in which Buchanan is irrelevant.

Now, at best, he represents a Silent Minority that shrinks by the day. I remember watching some of the Reform Party convention on C-Span back in 2000. The average age of the conventioneers appeared to be past 75. They were in pitiful condition: lots of wheelchairs and canes. If I hadn’t known better, I might have thought that I was viewing an event not merely at a retirement community, but a nursing home. It was sad, these representatives of an America that no longer existed. I couldn’t watch more than a few minutes of it at one sitting; what I saw genuinely disturbed me. What I saw when I went outside disturbed me even more.

Meanwhile, the non-whites continued to flood in, and leftist/jewish cultural levers continued to spew their poison.

It was obvious to me then that, whatever sentimental attachment that I might have had to it, Buchanan’s America was over. It had, at the very least, one foot in the grave. There was no longer any energy to it, or any real gravitas. Just the weary regret of old men who simply can’t believe that what is so obvious to them is not also obvious to everyone else. Old men with decent instincts, but who had absolutely no idea as to the nature and power of the forces arrayed against them, much less how to beat those forces. Old men who, I suspect in more than a few cases, returned from the convention to a home darkened by their mulatto grandchildren. All very, very sad. I suspect that a huge percentage of that 2000 crowd is now dead, along with their world.

The race blind mainstream conservatism that has displaced Buchanan’s more authentic flavor will itself suffer the same fate. Demographics are destiny, and the Jewish stranglehold on our key societal institutions remains unchecked.

Not to put too fine a point on it: it’s over.

To be a bit more precise, it’s over for traditional America, for Buchanan’s America. But it’s not over for us, in fact it’s only beginning.

We can still move forward, if we are able to let go of what is truly and well lost. Sad though it may be, America is one of those things.

White nationalism is all that is left, the only worldview that is capable of accurately identifying the existential crisis that we face, and the only worldview that offers a way forward… however long the odds. For all our faults and foibles, we if anything skew young, but at the very least have strong representation in all age groups. We have truth on our side, but more importantly, energy and the potential for real fanaticism. At the very least we are obsessives, and I mean that as a compliment.

There has been an ongoing debate within white nationalism between the “vanguardists” and the “mainstreamers.” I’ve always thought it was largely a false debate, but false or not, it is becoming moot. We aren’t welcome in the mainstream, and we’re not going to be welcome. There will be no long march through the institutions, as those doors are shut to us.

We’ve got to face the fact that we will not be allowed to reach the majority of the white population with our message. This, while tragic, is not fatal. Revolutionary ideas and movements are made by minorities, and we certainly can reach the more motivated, obsessive and fanatical of our people. Those are the people who, if we are to have a land of our own, will be instrumental in bringing it about. Only they, the “vanguard,” can get the ball rolling, and once they do, then the millions of our people who retain healthy racial instincts (and large numbers do) can enter into the equation. But we have to work with the tools and capabilities available to us, which means vanguardism by default. It is not a bad thing for that to become crystal clear to us. It’s a good thing.

So, despite my soft spot for Buchanan, his firing is probably a net positive. There should be no illusion that the system is anything other than hostile to us, and his firing helps drive that point home.

The focus, energy, obsession and fanaticism need to be directed toward one and only one goal: the coming White Republic. All else is mere diversion or dead end.

As Buchanan himself has more or less said, it’s not that he changed, but rather that America changed. There was in fact a culture war… and his side lost. The culture moves inexorably to the left. Once mainstream conservatism abandoned the defense of whites as a people, this march to the left was inevitable. A new people require a new narrative, new heroes, and a new worldview.

NS replaces WN

cartel nazi

 

(Tod der lüge = death of the lie; Hochfinanz = high finances.)

 

I am afraid that from this post on I’ll try to avoid the term “White Nationalist” to describe myself. I’d rather use the old term, National Socialist.

Reason: Virtually all bloggers that subscribe White Nationalism love what the Nazis called “degenerate music,” and quite a few among them despise the heroic efforts of the Germans to protect their race from Marxism, and also from the world of high finances, the subsequent degeneracy, and the brainwashing of whites by the Judaization of the West (including Christianity).

Even those Americans in Dixie who currently reject the term White Nationalism and prefer to call themselves “Southern Nationalists” love to watch the thoroughgoing Judaized television and the Hollywood movies of today, including nigger sports; and some of them even boast their pre-marital “games” in the comments section of their blogsites.

Other White Nationalists go so far as okaying “gay marriage” while, at the same time, follow the most abject form of political correctness by prohibiting a frank debate on this issue within their sites. Still other racialists are reluctant to approach the Jewish Question and some openly advocate libertarianism (see the “Marxismus/Hochfinanz” serpent above) as well as the liberal use of drugs…

The above is only the tip of the iceberg but enough to make a point: I have little to do with this people. Yes: the name “National Socialist” may sound bad to many ears but I still will use it to mark a distance between me and the current degeneracy that is engulfing the West, including racialist circles.

After all, the NS principles have already been introduced in this blog with the full citations of Helmut Stellrecht’s Faith and Action, originally written for the Hitler Youth in 1938. Always keep in mind that Alfred Rosenberg said that the swastika was the symbol of a White rebirth which must someday save the entire West, including North America.

Rather than keep swallowing the gross caricature of the mainstream media, breath the true spirit of National Socialism by reading the booklet by Stellrecht here.

Stubbs on anti-Nordicism

Or:

Saying the truth about race throws even White Nationalists into fits

“Most white nationalists are merely lefties who, understandably, loathe Jews and niggers, etc. They want the 1960s (sex, drugs & rock’n’roll, abortion, absence of any duties, etc.) without the unpleasantness of the aforementioned groups in their midst. The herd needs a great deal of culling.”

—Patrick

 
felix_von_luschan_skin_color_chartIt’s really a microcosm of society at large isn’t it? I know a swarthy Italian and he’s really pro-White! If you alienate Greeks they won’t vote for you or buy your stuff! I’m not Nordicist: some of my best friends are black (-haired)!

But it goes beyond that. How many White Nationalists are willing to outright say that women, as a biological class, should not have the same legal powers as men? That homosexuals are mentally diseased and shouldn’t be allowed to run rampant? That most people simply aren’t intelligent enough to make important social or political decisions, and that society needs to restrict their behavior unless it wants to become a consumerist MTV hellhole? That in many cases good people should be stopped from reproducing because they have bad genes? That industrial society will always cause genetic devolution unless a comprehensive and mandatory eugenic system is in place? That the world’s resources are finite and bloody conflict over them is an existential fact, unless one faction already has uncontested martial supremacy? That religion and culture can uplift or destroy a society, and cannot be left a “personal choice” by a true revolutionary? That biologically and mentally superior groups of humans lived before us and will probably live after us, and we will never be their equals? That The Beatles mostly sucked?

So it’s definitely an axiomatic thing. Modern Whites can’t accept that a human can be unequal to another—and thus superior or inferior—as an existential quality, and not as a result of some “choice” or sin. This does indeed seem like a problem greatly inflamed by Christian metaphysics, where equal essential being (the soul) is assumed, and only “free will” (faith or sin) distinguishes humans from one another in an ultimate sense.

“Nordicism” among White Nationalists is almost identical to the response to “racism” in society at large. Thus, White Nationalists treat Mediterraneans like Republicans treat mestizos: they put emotional non-sequiturs up against biological facts, and they wind up trotting out “token Italians” because accusations of an organization being “Nordic” in White Nationalism are taken like accusations of an organization being “all white” in the mainstream. We’ve just fallen into the same mentality.
 

nordic

This tone, very light grey and near the colour of ice,
is the eye colour par excellence of a pure White Nordid.

I’m not even really in agreement with Covington; I don’t consider the Greeks to be basically Turks, I place them on the White side of the line, but I can recognize they’ve undergone some degree of mongrelization and that this would constitute genetic damage in an Aryan nation. Not all genetic damage is caused by mongrelization, and my guess is that all humans have genetic flaws of some type. Nonetheless some are much more damaged than others; in extreme cases this results in classification as a non-White or as a deformed/botched White, with exile in the former case and total sterilization or euthanization in the later case is the most sensible solution. In less severe cases the damage should be handled by a comprehensive eugenic system, which would use racial purity as a major (but not the only) determinant of genetic quality.

Psychologically though, I don’t think the “Nordicist” thing is being handled well, and the “transvaluation” thing comes back to light.
 
I said…

“WNs treat Mediterraneans like Republicans treat mestizos.”

Lol! Another quotable quote.

“I don’t consider the Greeks to be basically Turks, I place them on the White side of the line…”

You meant on the Olive side, not on the White side. Click on pic of the table at the top of the entry. On the left column you will see there more subtle white gradations of color, undistinguishable at first glance if you don’t click it.

With the exception of Greeks like the girls in the image of my most recent entry about Greece (today’s entry), most modern Greeks fall in-between real whiteness and the colored.
 
Stubbs said…

I meant in terms of allowing them in the Aryan state and attempting to repair any genetic degradation versus banishing them from the state and telling them to form their own country. I don’t think, for instance, that we’d bother trying to “restore” the Aryan genotype of someone like Obama: we’d just tell him to go live in New Liberia or wherever. At some point a human drifts so far from our race we write them off as an alien politically, but I don’t think many Greeks are there yet.

The problem is White Nationalists still have an equality-based mindset. They think once you pass through the walls of the 4th Reich and get a stamp that says “White” on it you’re just like everyone else inside the walls. Basically they want America without niggers, like you said; universal suffrage, freedom of religion, gubmint stayin outta my business, no biological program once everybody in the country is “White enough” to gain entrance, utilitarian goals for making people “happy” and “free” at the expense of anything higher, etcetera.

Pointing out an obvious fact like some “Whites” being purer than others (did you really expect the people who were occupied by the Moors or Turks for 300 years to be comparable to the Swedes?) throws them into fits. Not only does it retrigger all the anti-racist conditioning they thought they’d gotten rid of, but it makes them ask “where does it end?” “At what point can we finally stop paying attention to each others genetic (and non-genetic) flaws?”

 
sicilian-man

A Sicilian

The answer is that it doesn’t end: that all life is struggle and hierarchy and that the Aryan race will never be perfected nor entirely freed from threats. But that’s not what they want to hear. [William] Pierce made eugenics the core of his religious outlook, with nationalism as a means of protecting the eugenically-selecting society, but I see little concern for the subject among modern White Nationalists. Can you imagine a racial state with a comprehensive eugenic policy which didn’t consider the reversal of mongrelization to be a major objective? That it wouldn’t make its population look more like Swedes and less like Sicilians, as time goes on? It’s hard to do so, which is why I believe “anti-Nordicism” in White Nationalism has, among other things, shut down much of the discussion on the subject.

_______________

The above comment of Stubbs was posted in this article/thread.
See also the related articles: here, here and here.

An overly traveled road to extinction

by Hajo Liaucius



Klan-sheet-music

As a distant observer of the American White Nationalist scene, I am struck by its utter irrelevancy in public discourse outside of being a fund-raising tool for anti-Occidental activists[1] and as a subject of lurid speculation. In part, this distressing situation is a product of the typical pathologies and corruption endemic to counter-culture groups but I am not inclined to cover the endless scandals that have in large part defined the White Nationalist scene during the last fifty years or so. While the character issue and other matters should be approached, the issue of what exactly American Occidental advocacy presently entails in terms of an ideological foundation is of paramount importance.

Currently paleoconservatism dominates what little racialist discourse occurs in the States. Given that the mainstream of racialist thought in the states since the reconstruction era has been remarkably consistent, it matters little if one refers to it as Americanism, racial populism or racial paleoconservatism in terms addressing its ideological validity. Before considering the present-day applicability of the paleocon doctrine I think a consideration of the golden era of modern American racialism is worthwhile simply because it provides an excellent case study of the consequences of the character issue alluded to earlier as well as the utility of a racially based paleoconservatism as a governing ideology.

The golden age of American racialism coincided with the birth of what is commonly referred to as the Second Klan Era, which was founded by the publisher of The Jeffersonian newspaper and U.S. senator Thomas Watson in 1915. Watson built the Klan into a nationwide organization with more than four million members (about 15 percent of the white male Protestant population of the country at the time) that was particularly powerful in the Midwest and Southern states. The influence attained by the Second Klan Era far exceeded the accomplishments of American racialism at any time since as they managed to gain control of state legislatures in Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Oregon as well as electing a governor in Indiana and several Congressmen and Senators. Most impressive of all, they managed to heavily influence the Democratic Convention of 1924 and helped get a Klansman on the Supreme Court.

The combination of segregation, constitutionalism, opposition to Southern/Eastern European immigration, Protestant fundamentalism, isolationism and economic populism were all popular causes fully within the mainstream of public social and political thought at the time. Simply put, the Second Klan Era enjoyed a nearly ideal historical context in which to transform America into a society far more reflective of Occidental values. Yet they achieved little in terms of societal reform and lapsed into obscurity very quickly. The reason for this failure was largely a result of the limitations of the paleoconservative ideology they promoted, as will be shown.

The Second Klan Era was largely, with the notable exception of The Black Legion, committed to working within the confines of electoral politics for the purpose of advancing its public policy agenda. That agenda consisted of the preservation of the constitutional order of the day, maintaining the predominance of Europeans of Nordic, Western and Celtic origins in cultural and political terms; restoring Protestant fundamentalism to a place of preeminence, the maintenance of American neutrality, advancing prohibition and advancing the economic populist agenda of the time.

Needless to say, the reelection of Wilson in 1916 resulted in America’s subsequent entry into the First World War (as well as numerous imperialistic adventures in Central and South America during the 1920s), and the entry into the League of Nations ended American neutrality and weakened its sovereignty. On the domestic front Klan influence failed to slow the flood of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, the suffragette movement’s triumph, the decadence of the 1920s or the rise of the anti-Occidental mass media during the 1930s. In short, they failed to preserve the societal order that defined America at the turn of the century or protect the ethnic and religious interests they held dear despite being given an ideal opportunity to do so.

While the Klan was heavily involved in promoting prohibition and progressive economic policies popular during the first two decades of the 20th century, the passage of such measures happened because they were promoted by popular sentiment across major portions of the political spectrum (including Negroes, organized labor, fundamentalist Protestants and women) as well as the efforts of significant portions of the political establishment that were entirely unsympathetic to the Klan. As a result, it is very unrealistic to view the Second Klan Era as anything more than one of several significant factions promoting progressive reforms and prohibition.

The collapse of the Second Klan Era began in large measure as a result of Stephenson scandal of 1925. Under Stephenson’s guidance, Klan membership swelled to 300,000 in the State of Indiana and, in the 1924 elections, Klan-backed candidates won all but one of Indiana’s U.S Congressional seats as well as the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and the Secretary of State. Stephenson was the most charismatic leader the Klan ever had as he was a gifted orator and a popular leader throughout much of the country as well as the Grand Dragon of Indiana which was a major Klan stronghold at the time. Yet all he is remembered for now is the extremely brutal kidnapping, rape and subsequent suicide of Madge Oberholtzer. The resultant media coverage devastated the Klan and turned formerly cordial elite opinion against the organization resulting in a dramatic and rapid decline of its influence and popularity.

In 1936 the kidnapping and murder of Charles Poole and the subsequent crackdown on the Black Legion (a paramilitary offshoot of the Klan active in Illinois, Michigan and Ohio) sped the disintegration of what remained of the Klan forcing its sale in 1939 and it subsequently bankrupted because of tax avoidance in 1944, thereby ending the Second Klan Era and hastening the decline of racially-based paleoconservatism. The lesson provided by the Black Legion is that poorly planned, sporadic political violence can’t threaten state power but it does motivate repression and the political marginalization of would-be revolutionaries.

Any post-mortem analysis of the Second Klan Era naturally raises the matter of what would have happened had the rape and subsequent death of Oberholtzer been concealed, or conjecture about how history might have been different had Stephenson been able to control his depraved instincts. Such conjecture doesn’t seem fruitful given that sexual psychopaths tend to behave in ways that are incompatible with the rational life of self-sacrifice needed of anyone that aspires to revolutionary political leadership. In light of the savagery directed against Oberholtzer it appears obvious that his bestial nature couldn’t be controlled nor concealed indefinitely. His arrest for sexual assault in 1961 after spending decades in prison seems to confirm his unsuitability for life among Occidental people although other aspects of his conduct during the 1920s paint a very troubling portrait of the man as well as the organization that he led.

On a more fundamental level, the problem of the Second Klan Era was metapolitical in nature, which is to say that they ceded the parameters of discourse which predetermined the sorts of policies and tactics they adopted. Accepting the paleoconservative notion of Americans meant that the Second Klan Era accepted contemporary egalitarian notions about democracy while promoting a narrow form of racialism. Practically what this meant was that they hoped to restrict enfranchisement to the old Nordic/Western/Celtic racial base with no meaningful thought given as to how pragmatically exclude the already substantial Southern and Eastern European populations within the confines of universal suffrage, nor how the established party system could be dissuaded from catering to emerging demographics. Long-term Negro demographic trends in the South and Midwest made the Klan’s strategy of regional race-based enfranchisement unviable in the long term, which wasn’t surprising given the overwhelming financial, institutional and cultural strength of the establishment that dominated the rest of America.

Although an aristocratic remnant survived in the South as late as the 1930s, an adherence to democratic dogma and the economic/social populism of the period meant that the acceptance of the foundations of capitalism negated any consideration of natural hierarchies as a basis for establishing both rights and responsibilities, as well as a means of providing for greater social cohesion. The old Southern aristocracy provided a bulwark against Eastern financial interests in the antebellum and reconstruction eras, making such a choice tactically questionable and ideologically puzzling for an allegedly conservative movement based in the South. However, since no thought at all was given to syndicalism, guildism or corporatism, the Klan was left with populist prescriptions for state-based restraints upon the influence of capital which had proven to be a dead-end by the beginning of the 1930s.

While the Second Klan Era paid homage to the Confederacy, any serious discussion about secession simply didn’t exist within its circles at the time. Instead, lots of effort was spent praising constitutionalism resulting in the Klan seeing itself as the standard bearer of a contemporary Americanism rather than as a revolutionary secessionist movement. Unaddressed was the matter of how the constitution failed to stop the transformation of the country into a society dominated by North Eastern plutocrats or how a regional movement like the Klan could formulate a long term defensive strategy against a national leadership animated by a deep malevolence to all that the Klan stood for.

When one considers the obvious unsuitability of its foundations and practical experiences that should have been gleaned from what was then recent history, it is reasonable to presume that the Second Klan Era was content with being a regional force with no long-term strategy for remaining relevant. It appears instead that they hoped that somehow state-level autonomy could be maintained with current societal trends.

A consideration of contemporary written material clearly indicates that the Second Klan Era lacked any metapolitical foundation or coherent ideology but instead was a manifestation of incoherent but well-intended sentiments opposed to Occidental dispossession in the American South and Midwest. In a practical sense, the Second Klan Era was purely defensive and reactive and destined to fail even if Stephenson’s sexual psychopathy would have been concealed or repressed.

The ideology promoted by the Klan and like-minded groups since the Reconstruction Era is extremely similar to the ideology promoted by the mainstream of American racialist groups such as Stormfront, American Renaissance, Liberty Lobby, VDARE, the Council of Conservative Citizens, various Klan factions, the American Nationalist Union, the recently disbanded National Vanguard [2] and several other organizations as well.


American paleoconservatism

Given the failure of paleoconservatism to preserve Occidental interests in America within the nearly ideal historical context that presented itself in the Second Klan Era, honest men should question the suitability of the ideology within the current era even if most in the White Nationalist community refuse to do so, as has been the case for nearly ninety years.

obsolete constitution

As an adherent of the Revisionist Integralism/Organicism school, my critique of paleoconservatism is metapolitical in nature rather than drawn from a historicist perspective or bound by a narrowly conceived ideological preference.[3] As such, I would maintain that a foundational consideration of the paleoconservative disposition is needed.

Fundamentally, paleoconservatism should be about the preservation of that which makes a people or a nation-state unique. Yet within the American context that uniqueness has unfortunately come to mean classical liberalism, capitalism, constitutionalism and a less permissive form of Christianity.

The single greatest flaw with such an ideology is that the things it wishes to preserve are already dead. The constitutional republic of the founders so revered by the paleocons is like any other legal doctrine: it can’t help but die along with the societal conditions that gave rise to it.

It died when the states ceased to be sovereign entities able to withdraw from the union. The ordinal constructs that succeeded it are as alien to the vision of the 18th century liberals that created the constitution as the founders compared to the typical Obama voter or Howard Stern fan. When American paleocons speak of an American Order they incorrectly presume that a consistent legal and governing doctrine upon which public life is ordered has suffered degradations over time while still being salvageable and relevant by means that have never been meaningfully articulated. Such a view ignores the legal doctrines of the Confederated Republic era or simply presumes it to be a consistent, logical precursor to a perfected legal doctrine that began in 1789 and degraded to a major extent sometime after 1861 yet still represents an ideal that can be restored via the subverted institutions that have perverted America beyond recognition if some unspecified populist course of action is taken by a population wholly removed from the societal framework that gave birth to it.

In philosophical terms a major challenge to the notion of ordinal continuity so beloved of American paleocons and the angst about the decline of the republic is the reality that history has thus far given birth to six distinct American ordinal eras. With the exception of the First Federal Republic, the fundamental reordering of American life has involved a commixture of constitutional amendments and the practical nullification of constitutional rule via legislation, executive orders and the natural Dissipative effects inherent in liberalism.[4]

The paleoconservative notion of the American Order is premised upon an institutional and civic societal construct that hasn’t existed for several generations. Instead, it is more accurate to see American history defined by ordinal epochs characterized in terms of the degree to which Occidental folkways and mores within society had been dominating, are in decline, or nonexistent. Within the American context Permanence had always been undermined by the Degenerative aspects inherent in classical Liberalism. When Dissipationist forces became ascendant to such an extent that the order of the area became fundamentally changed, a new, more degenerate order with a new set of systemic contradictions comes into being giving birth to a new ordinal era.[5]

In the briefest of all possible terms these ordinal eras are:

1.- The Confederated Republic (1781-1788). This period was characterized by an extremely decentralized and weak confederation of effectively sovereign agrarian states whose cooperative association formed a republic defined by the radical liberalism of the late 18th century and an expansionist, racial supremacy led by Occidentals. This order was Generative in nature.

2.- The First Federalist Republic (1789-1861). This period was characterized by strong sub-national governments that voluntarily became part of a federated national state defined by a less radical form of liberalism and an expansionist racial supremacy led by Occidentals. Although agrarian economic interests dominated a large portion of the country, industrial elites had obtained substantial financial and political power during this era. This order was Generative in nature.

3.- The Second Federalist Republic (1861-1912). This period was characterized by sub-national governments with high degrees of autonomy involuntarily forced to remain part of a federated national state with significant centralization of power, typical of 19th century liberalism. For most of this period America was still defined in terms of an expansionist racial supremacy led by Occidentals although an ascendant Jewish minority held major influence in media, finance and government. This period was also characterized by experiments with imperialism and a decline of agrarian societies and a typically liberal consolidation of wealth. This order was characterized by a tension between Regenerative and Dissipationist forces with dominion of the former, but in decline.

4.- The Third Federalist Republic (1913-1954). This period was characterized by sub-national governments with significant but declining autonomy consistent with the progression of 20th century liberalism. America was for most of this ordinal era defined in terms of a preservationist racialism that had fully abandoned the Celtic/Nordic/Western core identity in favor of a pan-European ideal held together by propositional nationalism. Although still nominally led by Occidentals, an ascendant Jewish minority held a major (or arguably a dominant) position in media, finance and government. This period was also characterized by experiments with imperialism, the establishment of Chesterton’s Servile State, and the ascendancy of globalism. This order was characterized by a tension between Regenerative and Dissipationist forces with the latter ascendant.

5.- The First Post-Federal Republic (1954-2001). This period was characterized by sub-national governments with moderate and declining autonomy and centralization of power consistent with typical late 20th century liberalism. America was for most of this period defined in Cultural Bolshevik terms of racial nihilism, globalism and Chesterton’s Servile State. America’s ruling elite by this time was characterized by a mixture of racialist Asian, Mestizo and Negro factions as well as deracinated Occidentals subservient to Jewish power. This order principally represented Transience with Regenerative forces in steep decline.

6.- The Second Post-Federal Republic (2001 to the present). This period is characterized by sub-national governments without any meaningful degree of autonomy forced to remain part of a federated national state with a far greater centralization of power consistent with typical 21st century liberalism. The current American order is defined as an increasingly militant expression of Cultural Bolshevism which is manifested in terms of racial nihilism, familial collapse, globalism and an increasingly common form of authoritarianism created by the merger of finance and statist authority. America’s current ruling elites differ from that of the previous order in terms of the militancy used in the service of the destruction of America’s Occidental remnant and its growing insolvency. This order represents the triumph of Transience with Regenerative forces playing a negligible societal role.

The essence of the paleocon perspective on the constitution is that it can somehow resurrect a classically inspired form of liberalism while ignoring the reality that the foundational elements of Liberalism are naturally Dissipative. Instead of representing a force of Continuance the constitution has been reinterpreted and restructured to serve successive orders whose values are fully divorced from those created by those that founded their nation state.[6]

One endlessly hears commentary about the sacred glory of the constitution and debate among paleocons over its relevance in various contemporary controversies. Constitutionalists at best ignore and often celebrate that the constitution failed to protect Occidental children from literally being militarily forced to attend publicly funded indoctrination centers extolling the virtues of miscegenation while being physically abused by racial aliens.

In fact the constitution made of such travesties a celebrated basis of decades of legal doctrine. Although the constitution failed to prevent Occidentals in America from being dispossessed by an endless tidal wave of flotsam from the third world, it has granted the invaders legal equality with those that created a nation state. The constitution failed to prevent America from becoming a client-state of Israel just as it failed to prevent the rise of Bush’s Orwellian surveillance state.

The constitution has been powerless to stop the ascension of a multi-billion dollar industry based upon sexual debasement and an economic order in which tens of millions of Americans live the lives of serfs for global enterprises which buy legislators, presidents and judges. Although Constitutionalism has done absolutely nothing to prevent cultural Bolshevism dominating American life, it has given legal license to every manner of social malignancy one can imagine. And yet for more than one hundred and fifty years American paleocons cling to the fantasy that the very same legal/governmental doctrine that gutted the republic they love will somehow restore it back to the halcyon days of the 1950s, the early 1900s, the antebellum South, 1789 or whatever nostalgic fantasy they aspire to.

The reason that such a tragedy has come to pass is because such an outcome is a consequence of the individualistic nature of liberalism without which cultural Bolshevism simply would not have been possible.

What little remains of the paleocon movement is committed to racial egalitarianism and the notion that Occidental civilization can be perpetuated by races other than the one that created it. Mainstream paleocons believe that racial aliens can be assimilated to accept and even advance Occidental culture ignoring the realities of racial psychometrical differences and evolutionary psychology, and historical evidence to the contrary. In short, they embrace a major cause of Occidental decline (multi-racialism) and even uphold it as an example of enlightened Western values while bemoaning the societal disintegration it engenders.

Although racially conscious paleocons have been relegated to the margins of political and cultural discourse for several decades, they have continued to embrace classical liberalism because they fail to understand that the liberalism of the 18th century has cultural Bolshevism as its logical consequence.[7]

In part this stems from the egalitarianism and individualism expressed in the American constitution. America as a nation state can’t be understood to be an organic national entity in any meaningful sense of the term since it was not the product of the confluence of blood and soil and the folkways produced from such a dynamic. Rather, the old republics came about as an expression of the liberal idealism of the late 18th century and as such they exemplified a rejection of Occidental traditionalism with its emphasis upon communal responsibilities, privileges and hierarchy which are the foundational elements of Occidental social existence. The afore-mentioned confluence animates a society by defining its strengths and contradictions as well as determining what attempts are made to resolve said conflicts from the standpoint of furthering national uniqueness and survivability.

Liberalism is expressed economically as capitalism and socially as atomistic individualism.

Restorative forces are incompatible with capitalism because social interactions are determined largely by financial prowess and conformity to fleeting consumerist fads. Within such an environment, communing with ancestors and descendants becomes impossible when individuals can at best think in terms of family welfare and the occasional act of charity while typically they become defined by crass materialism or merely serfs living at the edge of subsistence.

The_worship_of_Mammon

The Worship of Mammon by Evelyn De Morgan (1909)

A notion often promoted in mainstream paleocon and White Nationalist circles is that modern day capitalism (often termed super-capitalism) is somehow substantially different than capitalism of whatever era they romanticize. Such a notion is absurd because it fails to recognize the antisocial nature inherent in capitalism.

Such destructiveness is demonstrated by the accumulation of financial power via usury which results in an extreme consolidation of wealth distorting so-called market forces, allowing oligopolies and/or monopolies to control markets and limit competition. In so doing they further consolidate their economic power by creating an economy in which purchasing decisions, competition and chances for individual enrichment suffer. Oligopolies and/or monopolies also subvert supposedly free markets and democratic institutions when they inevitably discover that legislation, and political parties and public office holders can be purchased as easily as any other commodity.
In effect, highly concentrated capital is able to nullify popular will via well-funded lobbying campaigns, dramatically manipulative electoral campaigns and molding public opinion to suit plutocratic interests. In practical terms the so-called private sector can be just as an effective oppressor as an omnipotent state although some would argue that the engineering of consent via a highly concentrated, corporate media creates a propasphere[8] that is far more capable of controlling dissent than any state could.

Paleocon economic thought is like mainstream libertarianism in that they both prefer to believe the flagrant lie that capital is not inevitably concentrated and/or that such concentration does not distort the market nor cause, social havoc.

Surveying the formally Occidental portions of the world makes it apparent that the political power of concentrated finance often cannot be overcome by regulatory regimes or tax policies consistent with the current liberal gestalt because the means by which such policies are crafted are owned by the very interests they seek to regulate. To the extent that various Western states have implemented social-democratic inspired controls over capital, the same dynamics of alienation remain in part because excessive statist regulation and taxes have simply shifted the power of capital to the state rather than to society at large. Statist regulation of capital is ineffective as transnational finance has far more power culturally and politically than any nation state can possibly muster within its own boarders. This unfortunate reality has been the case from the earliest days of the East India Trading company and remains so today.

Racially aware paleocons are cognizant of the reality that culture is a biologically based construct and that demographics determine the destiny of nations. Unfortunately they fail to realize that capitalism shapes demographics to suit the interests of those able to control capital.

When racial paleocons look upon the Antebellum South under the soft, uncritical glow of an unfocused nostalgic yearning for that which never was, they choose to ignore the enslavement of Europeans and the misery that was inflicted upon free White men forced to compete with slave labor. In the case of Rhodesian and South African segregation and the concentration of political power in White hands did not translate into economic security for working-class Occidentals who were forced to compete with far more abundant Negroid labor while paying higher taxes to support parallel social services for two separate races. Elsewhere in the Western World slave labor came to be supplanted by an endless supply of low-cost alien labor when it became technologically and politically possible to do so during the second half of the 20th century.

If by some miracle the racial paleocons of the likes of American Renaissance take power tomorrow, bringing back segregation and ending the influx of alien peoples, the twin forces of third world fertility and capitalism’s need for ever cheaper labor will do away with whatever demographic gains the racial paleocons may achieve in short order. Because a nation’s demographics determine its destiny, any such a White Nationalist democracy will be faced with disenfranchised alien masses that will have common cause with the plutocrats whose economic logic demands a system highly similar to what the formerly Occidental world has now.

While mainstream and racial paleocons alike pay homage to Burke’s famous call for self-determination from Madras to Manchester, they ignore that the traditionalism of both will perish when left to so-called market forces. Since capitalism views individuals as any other commodity, why should one expect tradition to be anything more than a marketing tool, discarded when something else can be sold with a greater return on investment? The same market forces which imported slaves nearly two centuries ago for higher profits while taking bread from the mouths of White laborers exports Occidental jobs for higher profits today.

With rare exceptions, rebellion within the context of a consumerist society has nothing to do with upholding traditionalistic values. Instead, uniqueness is based upon purchasing items which convey a pseudo-rebellion likely to win approval from one’s peers or reaffirm the carnality and nihilism sanctioned by the media.

Occidentals must confront the discomforting reality that we are faced with a relentless marginalization and a looming extinction for the benefit of an elite that hold us in contempt, rather than as individual members of a transcendent order in which commonality of purpose extends beyond material advancement and fashionableness. When a societal consensus is based upon ever fluxuating fads and the need to produce wealth for others with ever greater efficiency. Promiscuity, homosexualism, substance abuse, familial disintegration and delinquency will follow.[9]

Capitalism, and the individualism which gave birth to the classical liberalism of yore, and the liberty so cherished by those that claim to be conservatives, have seen the legal doctrines and institutions they cherish transformed into mere tools for competing interest groups and ascendant racial entities seeking to impose themselves over groups of individuals lacking any sense of common identity and purpose. Such an outcome is to be expected as Occidental peoples have had any sense of organically derived sense of purpose torn from them by design. Occidentals of all nations have no sense of an inherent uniqueness and value extending across countless generations of the past and those yet to be born, and are doomed to extinction as long as such a mindset persists. Occidentals merely produce greater profits for a global plutocracy which uses those returns to fund our displacement with no thought of communal purpose beyond our grandchildren (if that).

Surveying the decaying remnants of the Occidental world after more than two centuries of Liberalism in action has, without exception, meant cultural devolution, the rise of the anti-culture and our demographic decline culminating in the apocalypse slowly unfolding upon us. Segregationist efforts and slavery have uniformly failed to preserve a liberalism meant to serve Occidental humanity because of the inerrant contradictions within liberalism necessitate either continued Devolution or Restorative revolution. Realizing the uniformity of the Dissipative effects of liberalism upon Occidental societies, the only sensible conclusion one can reach is that liberalism cannot be fine-tuned or reformed into a Restorative force. We will not vote our way out of Annihilation and our tormentors won’t simply collapse, allowing a return to some halcyon era that never was. A viable attempt at a Restorative revolution has never been based upon liberalism because liberalism as an ideal intrinsically serves Transience.

Given that mainstream as well as racial paleocons lack the fortitude to realize the corrosive effects of capitalism and atomistic individualism upon what remains of the liberal democratic order, they cannot help but bemoan the demise of our traditions—while hoping that institutions controlled by racial aliens and deracinated Occidentals will once again serve the vision of the liberals of the late 18th century. A return to the liberalism of ages past presumes an electoral awakening of masses of lemmings motivated by gut and groin. Since history and current experience proves otherwise the continued paleocon adherence to such a fantasy demonstrates a Fourierian contempt for reality every bit as unreal as skull shapes being explained by Boasian anthropology.

A legal code is nothing more than a mechanism for articulating and balancing competing interests for the greater good of a society, as reflected within the confines of texts recognized as reflecting some transcendent truth. For a collection of texts to have such authority depends upon a nation being defined in terms of a people with a sense of common purpose, history and destiny. To pretend that such an authority can be instilled in a fractious collection of rival cultures bound by force and avarice (as is the case in the post-Occidental West) simply cannot hold up to even a mildly honest bout of cognizance.

The vast material disparities and attendant political/societal dispossession we suffer should be seen as an inevitable consequence of capital becoming ever more focused resulting in the amplification of the social and economic Hobbesian struggle of all against all. Given that paleocons have chosen to accept the foundational elements that have gutted our civilization and will continue to do so, it is sensible to conclude that constitutionalism has no chance of reviving Burke’s proud submission to the responsibilities of class and providence revealed in custom. Instead, recent generations have inherited the negation of those things, resulting in the end of common identity and purpose which has been replaced by the current anti-culture abhorred by all who reject the modern crapulence of liberalism.

What now is termed paleoconservatism is simply a sentimental attachment to the vestigial institutions of a largely mythical and deceased liberalism. Paleoconservatism is in practice nothing more than the collective delusion of viewing an apparition as a viable basis for restoring society to an idealized past.

Raspail is right when he sees us as Hermit Crabs inhabiting the bounty of an ancestry we neither build upon, preserve, appreciate nor recognize. Instead they identify with a romanticized concept of institutions and doctrines that once gave prosperity within a highly unique historical and demographic context which they refuse to understand. That such a context also conflated license for freedom making our current decrepitude inevitable is also ignored. Paleocons of all sorts as well as libertarians have done so partly out of ignorance and nostalgia, but also out of cowardice. The cowardice I speak of is that what they imagine to be prudence is nothing more than a hope—in opposition to reason that submission will ingratiate them to those that loath them and control the institutions that destroyed the ideals held dear so as to be co-opted by their tormentors. In the end all the paleocons of any description can hope for is the demented fantasy that, contrary to evidence and reason, revolutionary change can be avoided by merely fine tuning the legal code; withering the state, praying more fervently, or that assimilation will magically transform aliens into Occidentals as we fade as an anthropological curiosity.

Such a perspective is a biological and ideological distraction the Occidental world hasn’t been able to afford for several generations. A genuine conservatism, given the current demographic and institutional context, must be revolutionary in its rejection of the foundational assumptions of liberalism. Paleoconservativism and libertarianism never have and will never rescue a decadent, deracinated people from oblivion, nor even have made a credible attempt at doing so.

By contrast National Revolutionary doctrine has done so several times during the last century. Occidental man requires a revolutionary traditionalism totally divorced from liberalism. Anything else is merely an overly traveled road to the extinction of Occidental humanity.


__________________

Endnotes:

[1] The services provided by white nationalist groups in the U.S. seem to be to generate scary stories published by the ADL/OPP/SPLC etc., which get old Jewish ladies and paranoid urban hipsters to give money to those groups.

[2] National Vanguard was founded by William Pierce but it degenerated after read Pierce’s death. (Note of the Ed.)

[3] Like its Iberian/French/Italian predecessors, the Revisionist Integralism/Organicism school is principally concerned with the goal of societal unity as a means for the preservation and expansion of the nation which is understood as a product of the confluence between a homogenous folk and the land it inhabits. History is principally the record of how the national organism comes to define itself it in experiential terms and produce a communal entity reflective of providential will.

Both schools see the innate value of the individual realized within the context of a communion with ancestors, decedents and the living in which transcendent responsibilities to the values of Permanence shape collective and individual identity.

Like its predecessors, the school maintains that economic, political and spiritual matters can’t be seen as distinct from each other as the coherent expression of a nation is a prerequisite for survival in an anarchic world of rival nations and forces antithetical to all nations. Both perceive folkways as an expression of what is termed the associative/formative drive or verbunden Bildungstrieb of a nation and that state legitimacy is a product of how well it reflects and maintains a communion of ancestors, the living and descendants of a folk.

The Revisionist Integralism/Organicism differs from its predecessors in that it perceives human social existence primarily in terms of folk-specific conflicts between foundational elements that animate a society and how attempts to resolve such conflicts further national uniqueness and survivability. While historically Integralism often wasn’t explicitly concerned with the biologic foundation of national organicism, Revisionist Integralism/Organicism attributes the associative formative drive of a folk as well as the culture produced by it as unintelligible outside of a racial context.

Likewise, cultural and biologic decline is seen as inseparable tendencies although the mechanism that initiates the decline is seen as resulting from an interaction between the inherent contradictions with the application of folk’s verbunden Bildungstrieb and Mosca and Pareto’s understanding of elite degeneration. The practical resolution of the contradictions mentioned above usually involves blended elements of corporative, syndicalist, guildist and distributivist prescriptions within an explicit biologic and revolutionary conservative context broadly compatible with the formulations of the original Integralist movements.

[4] The concept of Dissipationism is an aspect of a broader metapolitical weltanschauung known as Integralism or Organicism and its successor movement, Revisionist Integralism/Organicism. Dissipationism is a force that is manifested as a range of social movements animated by a utilitarian reason that serves the ascendance of the Transience ideal. In practical terms Dissipationism is appositional to Burkian notions of prejudice, prudence and civilization as a consequence of biologic uniqueness formed by the confluence of genetics and geography which has historical progression and culture as it’s byproduct.

Examples of expressions of Dissipationism include feminism, globalism, egalitarianism, anti-racism, organized expressions of libertine lifestyles, liberalism and trans-humanism. Transience as an ideal is effected when social relations have wholly, or nearly so, dispensed with any sense of communion between the descendants and ancestors of the living in favor of social propositions that are not resultant from anything uniquely attributable to a genetically distinct folk.

[5] The concept of systemic contradictions within the Revisionist Integralist/Organic school posits that all political doctrines and the societal constructs that create them have inherent contradictions that are an expression of the folkish character that produced them. These contradictions consequently give rise to alienation within individuals, a class or society at large which lessens societal cohesion giving rise to Dissipative forces.

[6] The diametrical ideal to Transience is Permanence which when effected entails the ordering of social relations resulting from the confluence of genetics and geography which define history so as to provide a continuity of uniqueness and purpose to a genetically distinct folk expressed in terms of an organic state and society. Forces that are Generative are in effect when the ideal of Permanence is in ascendance or dominates social discourse. When the Transience ideal is in ascendance or dominates social discourse the oppositional forces are said to be Regenerative.

[7] Within the context of Revisionist Integralist/Organicist thought America’s radical liberalism of the Confederated and the First Republican orders owe their regenerative qualities only partly to the biologic qualities of the colonizers and the positive aspects of liberalism specific to a given era and place. The vitalism of the fist two republican eras is owed in equal measure to a combination of the Paleolithic condition of the American aboriginal folk dispossessed by Occidental colonizers, the geographic isolation and natural resources of the New World and the limited technological options then available to capital acting upon its naturally Dissipative tendencies.

[8] Propasphere: A sphere of propaganda. (Note of the Ed.)

[9] Alienation within the Revisionist Integralist/Organicist context refers not to the Marxist use of the term but rather to a process by which individuals, social groups or entire societies become disassociated from the values of Permanence.

Alienation is a product of the anti-culture in which societies and the constituents that comprise them cease to maintain a communion with the land and as an integral component of current, past and coming generations with a common purpose and identity. The forming of identity on the basis of shared banalities in the form of propasphere generated sports or media consumption present the most obvious and ubiquitous manifestations of alienation although in some instances thematic strains within such unwholesome diversions can be harnessed into efforts that have some utility to the Restorative cause.

Egalitarianism is evil

Or:

Equality, the immovable object that stands in our way


Now that I am following Tom Sunic in that an egalitarian mindset is behind the empowerment of the Jews, the article “Moral Barriers to White Survival” by Alex Kurtagic published in American Renaissance (reproduced below) makes much sense, in spite of the fact that Kurtagic has been very reluctant to blame Christian axiology directly. He rightfully blames Enlightenment values though, but does not go as far as the European New Right which seems to perceive the root of our woes in our parents’ religion.

Kurtagic

Many race realists are frustrated by liberal resistance to empirical truths. They would like to think that any rational person will study the facts, reflect upon them, and modify his beliefs accordingly—not immediately, of course, nor without a healthy measure of skepticism, but surely over time. Yet, as I have often said, in discussions of race and race relations “the facts” are not as important as we would like to think, because when choosing sides on this topic people are motivated primarily by non-factual considerations. In this essay I will explore the reasons why liberalism, though rooted in the scientific revolution and coming from the rationalist and empiricist intellectual traditions, has proven so impervious to the science of race.

Any facts or arguments that are brought into a discussion about race and race relations are nearly always subordinated to social considerations. Some of these are the need to be liked by family and friends; the desire to be liked by those one likes and admires and by whom one wants to be liked and admired; the need for social status; and ethnic identification. These considerations, because they are important sources of essential human needs, may cause the same set of data to be interpreted by people in radically different ways, including ways that fly in the face of evidence and make no objective sense.

We have an obvious example in the liberal/Left’s assertion that race has no biological basis, when the senses tell us otherwise and there is even race-specific medicine. A liberal/Leftist is committed to a moral system that deems equality an absolute moral good, and in a Western society, his status, particularly among whites, depends on his being considered morally righteous. Therefore, he will readily accept convenient data but dismiss inconvenient data or make it conform to his requirements. Those who accept this convenient data are embraced by whites in Western societies as morally sound, while those who accept inconvenient data are marginalized as moral defectives.

Such bias is not exclusive to liberalism or the Left; it is everywhere. What changes according to ethnic identification and cultural context is the value assigned to a morality based on universal abstract principles: For whites in the West this is very important, for other groups, in the West and elsewhere, it is less so, as their moral systems tend to be particularist and ethnocentric rather than universalist—the good is what is good for them.

In Western societies, whites who hold unconventional views, even views that fall outside liberal morality, are not exempt from such bias either.


Critique of pure empiricism

Race realists are a product of modernity and Enlightenment philosophy. They realize that humans are motivated by moral and ethical sentiments rather than reason, but, at the same time, they act as if knowledge, understood as empirical evidence processed by reason, ought to be the basis for morality. In this sense they are the diametrical opposite of their opponents, for whom what ought to be determines what is.

Put in more simple terms, race realists forget that knowledge does not come into being in a moral vacuum. On the contrary, knowledge is sought and acquired by individuals committed, a priori, to a given moral code, and this knowledge is interpreted, disseminated, and then used in accordance with a moral code.

Liberal morality

The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.

In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.

When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.

The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.

Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.

The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.

Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society.

Critiques of liberalism and its effects

During the 19th and 20th centuries, liberalism was subjected to critiques, from both the Left (Marxism) and the Right (Fascism/National Socialism). Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism/National Socialism are the three primary ideologies of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were defeated by Marxism and liberalism in 1945, and Marxism was defeated by liberalism in 1989. Of the three ideologies of modernity, only liberalism survives.

Fascism and National Socialism fell into discredit after the war and, due to their being inegalitarian ideologies, became shorthand for evil. Marxism was partially absorbed by modern liberalism because of its egalitarian morality, thus tipping modern liberalism even more heavily toward egalitarianism. As a result, modern liberalism is distinct from classical liberalism.

The triumph of liberalism has, in turn, made it invisible. Russian theorist Alexander Dugin claims that it has long since ceased to be political, and has gone on to become a taken-for-granted practice. We have certainly seen liberals branding critiques of liberalism as “ideological” without any sense that their own worldview is ideological.

Opposition of liberty and equality within liberalism

The triumph of liberalism, and the triumph of equality within liberalism, has meant that now, even liberty is subordinated to the requirements of equality. As communism and the multicultural experiment have demonstrated, liberty and equality are incompatible, so the ever-greater pursuit of equality results in the ever-greater erosion of liberty. A commitment to radical equality results in the proliferation of laws, state surveillance, police enforcement, prosecutions, incarcerations—and bureaucracies to administrate all of the above, and higher taxes to pay for all of it.

This is nowadays always justified with the argument that unlimited freedom leaves the field open to “fascism” (i.e., inequality), and that liberty must be curtailed in order to protect, guarantee, and maximize equality. We end up with a circular argument, then, whereby equality is good because it increases equality.



Immovable object?

Therefore, the single biggest impediment to the cause of Western man in the West is not lack of knowledge about race, but lack of a moral justification for valuing whiteness and everything it entails. Obviously, to value whiteness gives it a special status, which means inequality. In liberal morality, it is not acceptable to recognize whiteness, because it is a category that exists above the individual, and the individual is supposed to be the measure of all things, a tabula rasa, equivalent and interchangeable with any other individual.

In addition, modern liberalism incorporates a Marxist historiography in which whites are an oppressor class and people of color an oppressed class. This is explicitly the historiography of the postcolonial theory that is taught in Western universities, which privileges the voices of the colored “oppressed.” These voices subject whiteness and the West to radical deconstruction and criticism. Whiteness is, in fact, allowed recognition only when it is linked to oppression; in any other context, a black person has the specificity of his blackness, but a white person has the unspecificity of being simply a human, who is no different from or more special than anyone else.

Thus, belief in the moral goodness of equality is the seemingly immovable object that stands in the way. If politics is the art of the possible, then any campaign predicated on values outside the perimeter of what is morally acceptable—i.e. outside liberal morality—will not be politically possible.

The cause for Western man requires a fundamental shift in consciousness that would begin with a thorough discrediting of the notion that equality is a moral good. Until this has been achieved, ethnic politics privileging whiteness in the West will go nowhere, and it will remain easy for the liberals to shut down debate with the simple expression of outrage and name-calling.

Time horizons

Critics of this view may object that while it may be true that a change of politics will require a change of moral system, the time necessary to achieve this is too long and no longer available to us.

This objection assumes that challenging liberal morality is an entirely new project that must begin from zero. In fact, liberal morality, like all ideological moral systems, is merely a transient phenomenon, whose present dominance conceals the long tradition it once successfully challenged. Since ancient times and until the more recent part of the modern era, Westerners have considered quality more important than equality. Consequently, there is a vast philosophical canon to draw from, recover, reinterpret, and adapt to the modern world. Indeed, this has been the project of the European New Right, and The Fourth Political Theory, by Dugin, is an important contribution to this effort that outlines possibilities for a way forward, though any fourth political theory towards a post-liberal West would necessarily need to be home-grown and have a uniquely Western formulation.

The objection also partakes, inadvertently, in liberal cosmology, which conceives historical processes as linear progressions. In fact, as communism demonstrated, when power changes hands, the transition is not incremental but abrupt, with dissent gestating almost invisibly at first, under the surface, before growing exponentially, achieving critical mass, and producing a sudden change in state. This is also the way transformations occur in nature and the universe.

Liberal morality will eventually collapse. The question in the West is whether it will give way to another, autochthonous morality or to the morality of our conquerors. If the former, historians of the future will probably not see us as a rupture, but as yet another reinvention of European man within his wider metacultural tradition; they are likely to see liberalism as a political-moral-philosophical paradigm that came and went, the way others had come and gone before. Historians of the future may mark the periods of history differently from us, and by tracing the origins of our ideas, may decide that this reinvention was the culmination of a process that had begun centuries before.

Conservative commentators, such as Pat Buchanan, blame the multicultural society in the West on the Frankfurt School of Social Research and other such Freudo-Marxist subversion, and place the watershed moment of social transformation in the 1960s. Mr. Buchanan is, however, a liberal, albeit of a more classical or archaic sort than his critics, who are also liberals. We can trace the origins of the multicultural society much further back, to the Enlightenment, of which the United States (but not the colonies out of which it was organised) is an expression. European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation available to all.

The question in the West is how much territory we will lose before we can successfully discredit liberal morality. Curtailing those losses will require the artificial precipitation within liberalism of a moral and intellectual crisis that puts current morality on the defensive, generates doubt and loss of confidence in its principles, and leads eventually to panic, overreaction, and loss of credibility. The speed at which this can be achieved depends on complex factors, not to mention a measure of good fortune, but modern technology enables us to communicate and disseminate ideas more rapidly, more widely, and more cheaply than ever before.

Theory into practice

In any movement there are five planes of operation: the intellectual, the strategic, the organisational, the activist, and the man in the street. The first four are the movement proper and the latter is its target, which can be divided into three categories: the committed, who cannot be persuaded either for or against; the persuadable, who are the primary target for recruitment; and the conformist, who is apolitical and will follow whomever looks like a winner.

The activist will be useless, even counter-productive, unless his message and his arguments are informed by a sound, appropriate, and articulable moral theory; unless he is organised to operate credibly and effectively; and unless his organisation has strategies that can translate abstract theory into a pragmatic, results-oriented program of action.

The discrediting of liberal morality will need to be a process that begins with theoretical tracts and ends with protests, sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, and a pattern of establishment compromises and capitulation. The general theory will need to find its way into an endless barrage of narrowly defined, single-issue, winnable campaigns. It will be up to each individual to decide his preferred tactic and field of operation, based on his own strengths, weaknesses, experience, and areas of expertise. In this sense the opportunities are endless.

In the battle for the West the main obstacle in the Anglo-American world has been its aversion to theory. Anglo-Saxon man is pragmatic by nature, not given to philosophical speculation. He prefers to deal in the concrete and the factual. This problem is compounded by the fact that the United States—the world’s dominant power—is an Enlightenment project, whose founding documents were formulated by classical liberals in accordance with their philosophy. United States institutions may have fallen into the hands of hostile elites, but the liberal values of liberty, equality, democracy, and progress remain strong, and are, in fact, exploited by these elites to advance their interests. Theory is important. A way around this is to focus on morality, because Anglo-Saxon man is deeply preoccupied with morality.

The breakthrough will have been achieved when homo equalis is filled with deep feelings of shame when he is confronted with his own beliefs.

Caveats

The destruction of liberal morality will cause the collapse of liberalism. However, the collapse of liberalism will not necessarily mean that the individual values that comprise it will henceforth all be beyond the pale. It may be that not all of liberalism is bad and some of its constituent parts can be repurposed within a different set of value relations. If so, they will not be recognized as part of liberalism.

Also, while theory is important, this does not mean that everyone reading this should become a theoretician. For the Marxist, his theory is everything, but the anti-racist thugs who disrupt conferences and other events, while a product of Marxism, are unlikely to have ever read Marx, for they can hardly read their own names.

Final words

Ultimately, the problem of race realism is reducible to a single idea: that it is not the facts, but how people feel about the facts. The barriers that have limited or prevented the communicability of our proposition will only start to fall away when the value of whiteness can be expressed in righteous tones.


___________________________



See also The liberal axiom,”
which could be used as a corollary to Kurtagic’s piece.

The Führer’s way is the only way

Or:

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:

herrmann_die_fahne“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.

Linder’s Weltanschauung

“Why so hard!”—said to the diamond one day the charcoal; “are we then not near relatives?”—

Why so soft? O my brethren; thus do I ask you: are ye then not—my brethren?

Why so soft, so submissive and yielding? Why is there so much negation and abnegation in your hearts? Why is there so little fate in your looks?

And if ye will not be fates and inexorable ones, how can ye one day—conquer with me?

And if your hardness will not glance and cut and chip to pieces, how can ye one day—create with me?

For the creators are hard. And blessedness must it seem to you to press your hand upon millenniums as upon wax,—

—Blessedness to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass,—harder than brass, nobler than brass. Entirely hard is only the noblest.

This new table, O my brethren, put I up over you: Become hard!—

Thus spake Zarathustra



It is a pity that Alex Linder believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories, the subject of my previous entries, because his brutal honesty is so brilliant… Although he is not a Nazi, Linder is surely right by constantly quoting Hitler that the world is not for cowardly peoples—read: conservatives—. If whites are to survive we must become as hard as diamonds, as Nietzsche put it in his most poetic work.

Below I excerpted to a little more than ten thousand words the substance of what Linder recently said in an extremely long thread at Majority Rights, including a few quotations and full responses from those who didn’t agree with him (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):




The solution is not to mix and mingle with conservatives, as politically naive MacDonald imagines, but to separate from them and attack them. It is an incredible political mistake to tolerate Jared Taylor or any of his mini-mes in the White movement. That’s how the conservatives got coopted.

Having it both ways, which is the real subtitle of the Alt-right crowd, never has worked and never will work. Sam Francis’ career is proof.

The right way to go is define who we are, who’s our enemy, and keep the line indelible. Then attack the conservatives, polarize the nation until White and jews are seen as the only true and real political divide, and then fight it out until we win.

Anything Southern, christian, or conservative is a non-starter. These groups have all proven their utter incompetence to do anything but sit down and go backwards.

Attack the conservatives, don’t fawn after them—that’s the idea that will bear sweet, sweet fruit.

* * *

We must be a jealous cause, and destroy all competitors. And our only competitors are on the right. Once they’re gone, we’re ready for the big time—the jews. Well, in reality we fight both fronts simultaneously, but the fight that matters most first is against the fake opposition on the right—the professional conservatives.

* * *

If you disagree with my political argument that jews should be exterminated, as it is the only way to solve the threat they have presented to the White race for over 2,000 years, then make that case directly rather than attempting to character-assassinate me.

* * *

The spiritual universalism in christ-insanity and the political universalism in the Enlightenment are both examples of hubris.

The last thing we need is more politeness, more gentlemen, more codespeaking male swells with soft hands and gentle words. These are the men who will regain us our White sovereignty? The South isn’t ideological or fanatical?

Quite right. And that lack of impersonal, principled ideological fanaticism is precisely why it loses.

Fanatical ideology requires brains, dedication, perseverance, unwillingness to give up—the sort of thing we see in winners, not Southerners. Southern culture can be called conservative, but another word for conservative is just plain dumb. You believe what you’re told. You go to church. You respect authority. You know your place. The South doesn’t even have the brains to see that eventually demographic decline will insure there are no whites left in the South, and that means no South. Naw, suh, we got ouah niggers under control. The hell you do.

Fanatical dedication and ideological rigor are sine qua non in defeating the jew. And you can’t get those qualities at Piggly Wiggly.

* * *

What if we had a party called the Racist Party? What if every one of us were a member? What if we mass attacked the right, especially the paleoconservatives and the WHINOs? We attacked Buchanan and the rest of these jew-bought or jew-feared clowns with intent to destroy? We attacked Jared Taylor and the others traitors who sold out to the jews? We attacked the conservatives in the Tea Party for being weaklings, and we attacked Ron Paul for cowardly running away from his own words in his newsletter?

What do you think would happen? If we all did. Me. You all here. MacDonald. Johnson. Everybody out there who wanted in.

What if we forced every last excuse-maker to come down finally on side or the other. Are you a racialist or a religionist? A racialist or a regionist? A racialist or a Republican? Which is it. Make a choice?

What if we actually meant what we’re saying, and proved that by our verbal actions (to set the very first, very lowest standard)?

Soon enough we would have a reputation; I think we would run through the weak right like butter. We’d be well on the way to a serious polarization between the judeo-left and the mean-itz whites.

I repeat again: What if we actually meant what we said about race? And didn’t make excuses for people couldn’t / wouldn’t / shouldn’t say wht needed to be said? At some point, there is no more equivocation possible. Look how free you all are with the attempted character-assassination of the tiny minority who aren’t using fake names. Do you honestly believe you aren’t worms—those of you who aren’t veiled antis, head cases or undercover cops?

I have never in my life seen such a collection of excuse-makers as the race crowd. Edwards is a fangirl; Spencer and Taylor are shirtfronts. There is nothing serious there. Serious men would laugh a clown like Buchanan off the stage, not brag about getting him on their radio show.

Racialism is not ready for prime time, and it never will be until it learns to see professional conservatives as the enemy rather than as movie stars.

* * *

The Jews are playing for millennia. They’ve defeated all of their enemies.

Bingo. We have a winner. The jews enemies aren’t defeated, they no longer exist. They’re extinct.

And they’re working on the same for us. But oh no, we must never even hint at the same for them. That’s crazy talk!

You kiddie-clowns, not one of you with the balls to run your lies under real names while yapping about me being abnormal, many of you with more personas than sybil, not a friggin’ clue in the world who you actually are or what you believe, would, if you had any integrity, meet my “death to the jews” head on.

It is my considered intellectual opinion, formed on the basis of close reading (and as deep thought as I can muster) of E. Michael Jones’ two giant tomes about jewish radicalism and 2,000 years of jew-goy relations. I believe it’s the only rational conclusion an honest man studying the material can come to. As such, it simply must be put on the table. Our cause is that serious. The funny thing here is at least two of you jokers actually were literal nazis, or adopted that persona, whereas I myself have never been such. Nowhere is there a picture of me, as there is of Duke, wearing Nazi gear, because I’m not one. I believe in a racial dictatorship combined with a diversity of microstates, and I would prefer to in the most libertarian one that can be devised. And that has been my position from day one: racial dictatorship + decentralization for non-racial matters.

Who is serious here, me or you?

The answer is obvious.

* * *

Linder’s Strategy: Attack the Conservatives.

This is the struggle against the struggle for survival. It’s Jewish. It’s Satanic. It’s spiritual poison. Any race of people who endorse it will die.

All christians are spirit-queers. Homosexuals of the spirit, if not the flesh. Of course, many of them are flesh queers too, especially the priests.

If the Jewish method is to kill us while lying that they love us, wouldn’t the Aryan response be to kill them while admitting we hate them?

Exactly. It’s a little thing called style.

Nothing Is More Moral Than Race War. Nature demands it, and any subspecies that is unfit to acknowledge that demand will rightfully be erased from the pages of history.

I’ve never understood why WN [white nationalists] who remain stupid christians don’t pick up on this and run with it.

An Aryan baby… Naive, naked, defenseless—that is the Christian ideal itself. Lest ye be as children and all that.

That’s why the jews always win.

Christian “love” is a disorder, and our social order today reflects that disorder.

They are System conservatives—our enemy, not our ally, not us. Buchanan, their holy figure, is not us. The idea that I have to tell racialists that a Catholic who believes racialism is immoral and selects a female black for his running partners is in fact not a White nationalists is past irony, isn’t it? But I sure do have to, don’t I?

I’m calling into question here that people traditionally thought to be on our side are not on our side, and that bothers people because they 1) haven’t thought about it; 2) don’t like me; 3) do like the people I say aren’t us. It’s all just personal touchy-feely stuff, with no one seeing any need to be clear and precise and ideological.

Is it not evident after 100 years of failure that conservatism cannot defend our race?

How did Buchanan treat Duke? Just like the jews did at the AmRen conference—he attacked him.

Are we on the same side as Buchanan?

No. We are not.

Linder apparently defines anybody who fails to be anti-Jew as a potential target and anybody who fails to be pro-White as a potential target.

Quite right. You polarize by forcing people to choose. And you make the split one you can win on.

You like fags? jews? multicult? niggers? mexicans? bureaucrats? warmongering? minority welfare? hip-hop? drive-bys? abortions?—then side with the judeo-left.

You like white people? normal sex? self-control? minding our own business internationally? low taxes? —then vote for the White Party.

The media will always back even a Buchanan over the real thing (Duke). The System will sustain itself by protecting itself, and gelded conservatives, to be redundant, are every bit as much a part of the White-oppressive System as nigger welfare recipients and jewish warmongers.

Buchanan is the bushel over our White light. Get the right-wing conservatives out of the way, then suddenly Whites are the option to the hated judeo-left. Then we’re getting somewhere. Because unlike the Buchanans, we actually mean what we say.

The point is, if we think like this, we know exactly who our enemies are, and we know how to attack them (as fakes, liars, opportunists and career girls). We must drive the can’t-say-thats and the don’t-mean-its off the world stage and make way for Whites.

Look Matt, if I may. If there’s one fundamental characteristic of the right, it’s weakness. The way we treat the gelded right is simple: we just bulldoze them.

It is always a mistake to “appeal” to weak people. Rather you overawe them into submission. You “appeal” to their natural gutlessness by bulldozing them. And what the hell? Let their fear lead where our minds have already gone. We’re right. They just need to shut up and get on board. They can figure out why we’re right later, like an abducted bride.

It will move thru the rest like butter. It will attract a hell of a lot to its side, and scare the rest into submission. Strong men and the right strategy will get us what we want. Right now we’re lacking strong men. We have lot of smart men, but most of them, still, are confused. I write to clarify things for these smart, confused men.

This sort of polarization both imperils Race Realism’s utility as a gateway and squanders resources which could be invested in more useful attacks on neocons.

You wouldn’t have to attack neocons if you were an honest White rather than playing around with faggotry like “Alt-right.”

I actually believe if you could get a charismatic veteran with hundreds of troops willing to kill and die for the cause, and you pursued the strategy above, you would attract millions, as the Tea Party has.

Radical separation from conservatism is the only way that can work. We must be jealous. You’re either with us, fully, or you’re our hated enemy.

Isn’t it funny? Even we supposed hard-core “Nazis” are at bottom just a bunch of pussies. We can’t even separate verbally, rhetorically and politically from the limpdick right. If X believes jews are whites, that’s cool man. If Y believes, well, no jews aren’t white, but we can still be friends and party together, that’s cool too, man. In fact the only thing that’s not cool is someone insisting that, yes, it really does matter whom we consider our friend, and whom our enemy. He’s the bad guy, for crissakes. My god. It’s not like we don’t have 100 years of conservative failure and 20 years of Nazi success in Germany staring us right in the face. That doesn’t mean we have to be nazis or call ourselves nazis, just that we ought to copy their techniques in dealing with jews where we can, since the jews used the same techniques yesterday against Germans they use against Americans and Europeans today.

It is pathetic that I need to explain this. But no, no, what and who individuals “like” is all that matters. If it feels good, do it. Bunch of hippies, we are. Where has this brainlessness ever led? Nowhere. Why not try something different from what traditional conservatism has offered, since traditional conservatism has 100% record of failure? Why not step outside the box and try something truly radical? Something principled and ideological, instead of mushy and personal? My god, it might actually work.

And that begins by identifying who we are and who is the enemy, and what we demand. Otherwise the vehicle will be taken over by jews we took in as allies and they will redirect it to their racial destination.

The topic of “why white nationalism has no decent political representatives” is worthy of an entire essay itself. (Short answer—whites are not allowed to organize themselves racially. It is de facto illegal. The recent AmRen conference is yet another example of this.)

You got it, Sam. And then when those who soft-pedal or abandon jew-crit are able to pull off events without problems, it strengthens the “we’re doing it to ourselves” lie—and it strengthens the belief that letting jews into our politics is the right way to go.

But really, party politics is not what to worry about right now—defining ourselves, our vehicle, and attracting support from men with guns willing to use them is where we should begin.

If voting is all that matters, then would have already won. Indeed, we never would have lost. Brown vs Board wasn’t voted in, it was reverse-interpreted. All these votes from Alabama to Indiana to Arizona re illegals are voted exactly the way WN would have them voted. And judges just throw the ruling out.

The enemy doesn’t follow the law. But we Whites are so weak we pretend the enemy’s ignoring the written rules means we just need to work harder appealing to people who already voted for what we want! Get a clue, Leon [Haller]!

Until we have the ability to punch back, we’re just going to keep getting punched. That’s where we are. Voting has almost nothing to do with it. We win more votes than we lose, if you look back over 50 years, yet only the enemy’s agenda is ever enacted—never ours.

Now what does that tell you, bright boys?

We need a Hitler. What we have are Mississippi Leghounds, Virginia jew-fellators. Instead of the veterans of the SA we have Buchanan’s all-male drill team. “Pat! Pat! He’s our man! If he can’t do it, Jared can!”

* * *

I personally find it more thrilling to be part of the line descended from the original creature with blue eyes than the crank all-in-all you find in the bible. The bible is just crappy jewish historical and science fiction; the anthropology stuff, the being part of an eternal physical chain, that to me is the thrill. I get the same christabel matthews thrill up my leg that the japanese do when they see a round blue eye. They could give two shits about our sad and stupid faith in the bible; they want our eyes! And when I look in my relatives’ eyes, which are all blue, I see what they mean.

Only a sicko like a catholic could think that the transient thoughts running through our heads matter more than the blonde hair and blue eyes—by which I mean the heads themselves. It just rasps their vanity that what we are matters more than what we think. (I mean no nordicism, just using what is most physically distinctive about our race, at least in terms of color.)

You all can cry and cavil till the last chili bean is farted back to jebus, but it won’t change the fact that christ-insanity has not a goddam fucking thing to do with our race except give it an upset stomach from too many sleeping pills.

* * *

It was one of the two most instructive moments in US political history in the last 30 years, the other being the reaction to Duke’s senate campaign, with all parties and media joining up to defeat him.

Within one 24-hour cycle the Republicans went from praising Buchanan for his “Culture Wars” speech to blasting him and running away from it. Complete flip. Why?

Because the kikes had the fuck scared out of them by this very, very modest approach on the castle they live in. Buchs ever so barely feigned at lifting the cover on the real thing underneath, because he is so skilled with words, and because there is a hell of a lot of white hot justified racial anger, you could see hear and feel the boil underneath. The forces waiting, just begging, to be tapped. You could just see what a real man like Hitler could have done with it.

That whole speech and reaction is worthy of a book.

But no, little glibster, I have always said Buchanan is not one of us. He is a catholic. Not a racialist.

Treating Buchanan with respect is treating our cause and ourselves with disrespect. He always sides with the more powerful authority.

* * *

No one’s scared of men who are rational and reasonable. They’re scared of Charles Manson.

Reason is for boys; emotion is for men. Academics fear emotion because it’s not part of their world.

Real politics has nothing to do with reason, it’s in the marrow—the fear and the thrill.

Like I said, just imagine what a Hitler would have done in Buchanan’s place. That’s the distance between a man and a Catholic; between a man and a conservative.

A very lean and ideologically rigorous national organization is instantiated with the purpose of providing local workshops with the strategies and resources they need to succeed. These workshops will focus on pursuing two distinct goals: evangelizing potential activists with our undiluted message and engaging the surface area of state and local politics to promote the White agenda. Our message to “the masses” is that we are their most dedicated, reliable, and effective advocates. We do not lie or equivocate on our core ideology, but our interface with the masses and the political process will be one of goal-oriented Plunkittry.

Our historical moment will arrive in the form of a Legitimacy Crisis. WLP [William l. Pierce], GLR [George Lincoln Rockwell], and Metzger weren’t buffoons (though I would quibble about their methods). They were torchbearers who carried our cause through its darkest decades.

At that point, a polarization strategy will be necessary in order to assure that imposters and showmen (like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump) don’t usurp our political capital.

My god. There’s actually some thinking in this, altho I’d like to see exactly what your ideology is. Ok, Parrott. I’m granting you provisional respect (pardon my Haller impression). Christ, you sound like an American national socialist with some Winterhilfe / hamas-type ideas.

Is there a Parrott primer where you’ve expounded all this to the limit? I vaguely know you have some Hoosier thing.

Anyway, thanks for laying that out.

* * *

We need fighters. Lots and lots of fighters. Without physical force on our side, we have nothing real to rely on. What did the man say? The truth is neato, but without a sword it can’t do much.

Hitler: The mass, the people, to me is a woman… Someone who does not understand the intrinsically feminine character of the mass will never be an effective speaker. Ask yourself what does a woman expect from a man? Clearness, decision, power, action…

For when a people is not willing or able to fight for its existence, Providence in its eternal justice has decreed that people’s end.

The world is not for cowardly peoples.

Conservatives are simply cowards. This is the reality of the situation, described by George Lincoln Rockwell:

As long as the right-wing confines its fighting to being “nice”, the great masses of the public will bow down like the sheep they are to the left-wing which is not nice. The force is disguised, of course, in checkbooks, judges’ robes, rigged party conventions, etc., but it is still force or the threat of it which has America down and afraid. No amount of papers and pamphlets, were they all masterpieces of propaganda, and no amount of talk and meetings can stop this growing left-wing force and power, and the fear it inspires—much less drive it back and destroy it.

See the Rockwell quote above. The left wins by intimidation. Not by legal or rational means. And our “best” minds are out there doing what? Trying to influence the Republican Party. This is not leadership. This is not serious politics. It is kibitzing. Womanly, effeminate. Remember what the real leader, Hitler, said: the masses are like women.

How can Hitler be a better analyst of our times than we are if he’s not right? How can a man writing in ’30s Europe be a better analyst of 2011 America than we are unless he has nailed something essential that persists through time and across place?

This guy nailed it. It is clear as a bell. Anyone who has dealt in nationalist and conservative circles for even just a few months can see exactly what he’s talking about.

Isn’t that humiliating? But is it not true? Is he not demonstrably and observably right in what he says about revolutions, jews, bourgeois conservatives, the way to conduct meetings, and the rest? My god, we see it carried out before our eyes every single day of the year.

Conservatism has no solutions because conservatives are self-interested, self-protecting cowards. They are the upper-middle-class bourgeoisie. They provide good writers, and quality entertainment, that’s all. They are respectable, responsible, appropriate—and there it ends. They will never, ever, ever condescend to actually fight over anything because… that’s not what they do. Only crude proles are low enough to actually say what they mean and bust knuckles over it. Not us turtleneck-wearing, hair-fixing better-thans. As a class, these bourgeois conservatives are, in relation to our racial cause, summer patriots. They’ll join the White cause when it’s 99% of the way to victory, and nod to themselves that they were with us all along. It’s just how they are. There is no leadership in them, just fundraising for more of the same kind of political entertainment they prefer—Vdare is a good example.

Trust me, guys. We get a party, a national party, do activism around hush crimes, and attack the conservatives like Buchanan with all our might, in very short order we will become a known force on the national scene; we will attract more support than we can handle, and we will drive the fake right out of the field, leaving us racialists alone speaking for White normalcy, with the cowardservatives either shutting their whineholes or joining us. Normal white people have supported Republicans and conservatives who didn’t mean it for decades. Do you think they’ll be less enthusiastic about supporting Whites who do mean it? You ever see the pictures of people when Hitler came to town… riding open in a car?

“The only thing that gives orders in this world is balls.” —Tony Montana. It’s true. You know it’s true. Our cause has failed because we lack balls.

Just look up and down this thread at all the bitching, whining anonymous faggots, and then ask yourself why the jews are running things. Not hard to see, is it? The jews have balls. Big fucking balls. Lie-about-anything, fuck-anything-up balls. Our “best” men are scared even to mention what’s going even among ourselves, where there’s most need to be serious.

No, no, let’s retreat to the fantasy where we’re going to argue our way to victory… by rational persuasion!

Dreamworld, man. Pure fantasy.

I’ve opened thousands of pieces of mail from people writing into conservative magazines; I know how they think. They will take our leadership, whether we are nazis or white nationalists, just as they now accept the leadership of neoconservative jews. The masses are feminine, they can do nothing but follow. The only question is whether we are masculine enough to lead. Taylor, Spencer, MacDonald and like conservatives are not. Not me saying that, or, not just me saying that, it’s Hitler and Goebbels, men who proved it in the field.

* * *

Why do you think I’m typing here? Because there are smart people here, and I want to influence them to see things the right way. Without a very large number of people all pushing the same way, nothing gets done. Just, as Goebbels said, “piecework” that is easily destroyed by the enemy any time he desires to. But if you have that group of people, all vitally committed, and on the same page ideologically, then you have a real shark pack that can take out the enemy.

It’s good to be a divisive asshole right now. Because it destroys the illusion we’re united. Our cause must be a jealous cause. It must destroy all competitors. Why are we putting eyes on Itz Pat’s pages, and pelf in his pocket? Is he us? Then why are we making excuses for him? He’s our enemy. Our competitor. And all you guys can say, à la Spade in Tommy Boy, is “mmyeh, he seems nice.” Grow up, you fruits. This woman is eating our lunch, and we’re fetching him a beer and asking for an autograph. Christ, I can find garden slugs that understand politics better than 2/3 of you.

We think that liking someone = us being on same side. It’s a female way of understanding the world, and boy is it ineffective.

Consistency is what attracts serious men—it is what made me curl my lip at professional conservatism and drew me to William Pierce. He didn’t change his position to fit the tides.

Let’s get serious… with the agenda written in stone. Let’s take the world and make it our own.

Southern types… They simply aren’t smart or quick enough to do battle with jews. Indeed, it is the hardest thing in the world to teach a Southerner basic facts about anything. It honestly is about one degree easier than teaching math to a nigger. A few of the lawyers can get it; beyond that the South is intellectually inert. But that’s ok. Our problem now is getting physical fighters, not thinkers and yappers. Southerners like the military. We don’t need mouths from the South, we need fighters. The problem in the North is the opposite: you get the bourgeois pantywaists.

So we rile, roil, and rhubarb until one tendency wins out. It’s going to be mine. Not because I advocate it but because it’s right.

But yeah. In our racial state, of course, anyone trying to disrupt the racial basis of the state, or profit by undermining it, will be executed. There will be few jails. There will be only some second chances and no thirds.

I don’t mind if people want to live as Catholic delusionals. We can’t be that liberal on race because other whites’ desire to live with or among muds does affect all of us in ways we, at least, are not willing tolerate. As for me, I’m not even willing to live in a white welfare state, I’d fight over that too. I’m going to live in the most libertarian microstate possible.

* * *

If you read the Patrick Casey article at Alt-right, Casey depicted Sobran as literally sobbing over the death of Irving Kristol. Even though Sobran himself and his family were essentially made homeless and impoverished due to the actions of the Kristols and the other vicious, hate-filled neocon jews who got him fired.

I guess that’s loving your enemy. I guess it’s fair to say Sobran stayed true to his principles. “Some principles” is the only way a rational man would respond. But every christian gets to be a heroic mini-me jesus in one way or another, I guess.

From where I sit, Sobran just looks weak as hell. Is loving your enemies really an improvement on hating and fighting them? I don’t think so. I actually think a fair deal less of Sobran, as a man, after reading the article, which I’m sure was not Casey’s intention at all.

Christ-insanity is not conservative, it is liberalism itself.

How funny is it that the tryhards on the pallid right defend endlessly “what joe calls” the local and traditional, yet when it comes to religion, why, no local and traditional gods for them!, no siree. They go big, when it comes to gods, by god. They go general. Catholic. Universal. And the contradiction never even makes an appearance in their waking consciousness.

Christianity is not conservative, christianity is universal—abstract, liberal, ideological. That makes it intrinsically anti-White, because it forbids the spiritual aspect, as well as the racial aspect, of Whiteness from being identified, which in turn prevents it from being preserved.


Posted by Trainspotter:

Anon/uh: “In other words two impossible conquest scenarios. Expulsion is extermination-lite. (Trainspotter, I am not ‘attacking’ you here.) Some guys just can’t accept that their bargaining terms are too high.”

Equating things as disparate as total world conquest / extermination with the establishment of a White Republic is silly, not to mention harmful. That’s precisely what our enemies do: if you care about white racial preservation, you are a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Look at a map of the world. How many racial/ethnic groups have successfully established sovereign nations? Plenty. How many have managed global conquest with extermination and total removal of all of their enemies? None.

Regaining sovereign white territory is entirely possible, it’s only a question of how much or how little. World conquest, on the other hand, is not on the table.


Posted by Linder:

Look at a map of the world. How many racial/ethnic groups have successfully established sovereign nations? Plenty. How many have managed global conquest with extermination and total removal of all of their enemies? None.

No. None yet. The powers that be very clearly believe in global political conformity. Once you have executive mechanism to enforce that, you have the technical means of genocide. And if you haven’t noticed, the array of tools for spying and shooting people in 2011 is nothing short of awesome, and will only grow more so over time. Technology is one of things where looking forward helps more than looking backward. We know from ex-Mossadist Ostrovsky our worst has been working on ethnic bio-weapons for decades. Global extermination is completely thinkable to our worst enemy—he studies it daily in his science labs funded with white-taxpayer money, and he celebrates near-genocidal past successes in his holidays.

Regaining sovereign white territory is entirely possible, it’s only a question of how much or how little. World conquest, on the other hand, is not on the table.

World conquest is quite possible. And if regaining White territory is “entirely possible,” feel free to explain how we do it.

* * *

America is, what? 90% christian?

But don’t you be caught praying in public schools! That will not be tolerated!

You know what is tolerated in these public schools? Queers! The creatures the bible says should be shot on sight. Little christ-crank children are taught that homosex is good, not destructive. They’re taught to be promiscuous themselves, if they can’t quite make it all the way to sainted queerdom. They’re encouraged to form “Gay-Straight Alliances” and speak out against bullying.

Yes, all this in a Christian nation. Led by brilliant heroic politician-writers like Patrick by god Buchanan.

I don’t understand? How could this happen?

What a bunch of sad weaklings. Of course, Pat Buchanan doesn’t have any children. He’s married, but he may well be a homosexual, like so many other conservatives, including the weirdo-of-some-sort Sam Francis.

My god. If Pat Buchanan is a “leader,” then black is white and up is down. It sure explains the wormly qualities of his defenders, though.

But no, let’s be fair. Itz Pat! has lots to be proud of. Stuff all racialists can support:

• helped Dick Nixon save Israel—helped institutionalize affirmative action—picked a black woman (no kidding: look it up, he really did) to be his running mate

Boy, it sure is hard to see why things are going so wrong in America, isn’t it? With all these bold, valiant conservatives and christians out there, real men of principle, we must be on the verge of the happiest, healthiest, Whitest society ever.


Posted by Trainspotter:

Linder: “None yet”.

Correct. Which equals none.

Linder: “World conquest is quite possible. And if regaining White territory is ‘entirely possible,’ feel free to explain how we do it.”

World conquest is theoretically possible, but nobody has pulled it off to date. Even granting its possibility in the abstract, if we haven’t even retaken a handful of small countries first, I don’t see how conquering the world is even on the table. First things first, and perhaps last.

An ethnic group grabbing a chunk of real estate, on the other hand, has been achieved time and time again throughout history.

As to how we do it in our particular circumstances, that of course is the rub. You make the point that we have to agree upon who “we” are. We also can’t even agree on what we want, and where we want it, much less how to go about getting it.

Even for those that can agree on an all white nation in North America, where is it going to be? The Northwest? Most of America? All of America? The friggin Yukon?

This is one reason (of many) why white nationalism still flounders around. Out and out suppression is of course the biggest factor, but we can’t even focus the resources that we do have. Many have called for some sort of organizational infrastructure, but what exactly would its goal be? Where are we going with this? What’s the end game? Does it inspire?

I believe white nationalist ideas are spreading, but until it gets some sort of focus, it’s not really going anywhere. At the present time, the only person even trying to provide focus is Covington with the Northwest, and while I’m a fan of his novels, I’m not yet sold on the idea. I will, however, grant that he has breathed some life into it with good old fashioned fiction. And while I have no interest in various movement squabbles of long standing, it would appear that Covington himself is a limiting factor, talented though he may be in certain areas. But hey, at least we know exactly what he wants, and it’s small enough for the human mind to wrap itself around, yet big enough to inspire. He’s onto something there.

In any event, our approach must be two pronged. On the one hand, we must continue to intellectually attack the system, laughing at it, scoffing at it, pissing on it. Fortunately for us and given our meagre resources, the system is doing a lot of the work on its own—but WN have helped it along. You’ve definitely done your bit on this front, and many of your insights and critiques have been devastating. Really great stuff, the sort of thing that doesn’t just change minds, but changes minds… if you get my meaning. Electrifying parts of the brain—I’m sure some know what I mean.

On the other hand, we must decide exactly what it is that we want (it might be nice to actually have a single nation before we indulge in dreams of broader conquest), and start building up a positive vision of that nation to be. Covington has given us a taste of the power of fiction, but we could expand on that so much more. Art, music, and so forth (another drawback with Covington, he’s still too caught up in the 1930’s rut).

Anyway, people gotta feel it.

I doubt we’re going to get the polarization that you seek until we have this strong and positive vision of something we really want, something inspiring but tangible and remotely viable… and then our enemies spit on it. If we can get to the point where we really believe in the coming White Republic, that would be a game changer.

Oh, Ron Paul supports our quest for the White Republic, even though he wouldn’t want to live there himself? Well, maybe that’s o.k. But Ron Paul opposes our White Republic because it would inevitably violate some of his precious libertarian dogma? Fuck him, the piece of shit. Same goes for the more moderate race realists that you attack. Once we’ve actually built up a credible vision of the White Republic, and then Taylor wishes it well, says he might live there himself? Great guy. But he scoffs at it? Fuck him, the piece of shit. Anyone who opposes us is like coming between a dog and his meat. Fuck ’em. Easy.

But we don’t feel that way now. We don’t see the meat. We can’t taste it anymore, we’ve forgotten—or we never tasted it at all. We’ve learned to live on gruel instead.

You get the idea. Once we have something viable to fight for, friend and foe will reveal themselves quite easily, and the passions will be aroused. We just aren’t there yet. We hate what the system is doing to us, but it all seems so hopeless and theoretical to most. People gotta believe too. Why should people box themselves in when nothing seems viable? Can we really blame them for not taking the White Republic all that seriously at present (or insert your litmus test here), when we’ve barely (perhaps) gotten it past the initial silly stage, with plenty more ridicule to come?

Once more… this time with feeling. That’s just the way humans are built.

We’ve got to focus on something great enough to inspire and excite, but small enough to appear at least remotely viable and doable. Otherwise you lose most people, if not for one of those two reasons, then the other.


Posted by Linder:

“It does not matter how clever it is, for the task of propaganda is not to be clever, its task is to lead to success.”

Thanks for digging that, Sam, and that is a fantastic piece of advice and expertise from Goebbels, well worth rereading for all of us. I still think I’m remembering something else. Something specifically contrasting bourgeois cleverness with Nazi seriousness. The point of the part of the piece I’m remembering is that the bourgeois writers are all striking poses to impress each other—the MacDonald milieu in a nutshell; whereas by contrast the Nazis are dead-seriously winning people over—concerned only with the effect their reception has on tuning the message and the form of its delivery.

…which began with him being ignominiously arrested within 5 minutes of his Knoxville rally kicking off [this commenter refers to the arrest of Linder during a street manifestation].

Go vote Republican, you middle-class hair-primping pants-wetter.

Omigod. Did he make a–? Oh. He did, didn’t he? He made a scene. Unfrigging believable. We don’t do that. We don’t make scenes in public. The respectable people will write us off. When the God-created negroes see fit to rape, torture and murder our beautiful life-starting young men and women—fuck them up the ass, light ’em on fire, cut ’em into chunks and throw ’em out in garbage bags—we will remain appropriate, respectable and tasteful in our reaction. We will buy candles. We will march in condign and seemly order down a block or two. We will sing a nice hym, and wipe a tasteful tear. That’s how you do it. That’s how it’s done. What we will not do is raise hell in the streets, and talk to the people with anger in our eyes and strong words from our heart. We will never, ever lynch the niggers who committed the hush crime, nor lynch the jews who produced it with their media-legal structure.

Remember our holy trinity. It must be:

Tasteful
Appropriate
Respectable

Or it cannot work. That is my religious view, and my religious view is reality, because it guarantees my mental equanimity and physical safety, so how could it be wrong?

Let Hitler judge:

“The course of a people’s history can be changed only by a storm of glowing passion, but only he can awaken passion who carries it within himself.”

Oops. Hitler just said MacDonald, the a3P [American Third Position Party], James Edwards, Richard Meh-Spencer, Jared “Polished Turd” Taylor are unqualified to lead us to victory. Not that you couldn’t see that yourself, but it never hurts to ask an expert. But I mean, shit—what does he know? He doesn’t have a Ph.D. Some of his speeches are disturbingly close to be passionate rather than tepid. Never a good sign in a would-be revolutionary. They call it reason fluffing, not rabble-rousing, after all.

* * *

What if everyone at my rally had followed me into the streets? What if instead of ~100 activists we had 5,000? And they all went in the street with me? Can you imagine? What? You’re not willing to risk a misdemeanor charge on your “permanent” record. So then how serious are you? Not at all, right. Can you face that in yourself? That this is all just entertainment?

I went in the street to talk to the public directly. Because I know I can win over the neutral elements. And I can make the antis look more ridiculous than they make themselves (a tall brag considering in this particular instance they dressed as brides). There’s not a doubt about it. See, that’s the difference between a White Nationalist man and a niggling, remonstrating conservative mouse. The mice only speak indoors to people who already agree with them. They pay for a room to hold press conferences that only they attend, and then fly home talking about their great victory. It really is to laugh over. They never get anywhere.

Go read the Hitler stuff at calvin.edu. You purblind English idiots are the most blinkered, bigoted fools on earth. Get over yourselves. Your stinky island is the measure of nothing these days, serious-change politics last of all things. Get over your hatred of Germans and just imagine Hitler and Goebbels as intelligent men writing stuff that fits in perfectly well here at Majority Rights. I mean, if what they say is wrong, reject it. But how can you say that—honestly? Read it—it’s so point-pertinent it stings. They’re describing our exact situation. Look at this:

Some believe that we are using methods in this battle that are too harsh. We reply that our attacks and methods in this battle cannot be determined by our way of thinking, by whether we find them ugly or harsh, but rather we must use methods in our attacks that are appropriate for the opponent that we are attacking. One cannot battle the Jews with the politeness of the noble Aryan soul, for which he as no understanding. We need only think back on the methods that the Jew used against our movement during the period of struggle. No lie or slander was too crude to be used, to be seized and passed on by the Jews and their Jewish lackeys with eagerness, enthusiasm, and Satanic joy. We would have had little success replying then with refined arguments. It is just as impossible today to combat this creeping, subterranean danger with methods that the Jew would only laugh at.

We’re in a fight. Not a debate. Not a game. A fight. Why aren’t we fighting? Where are our fighters? We try to turn our potential fighting men into middle-class ineffectuals like our thought-leaders. This is wrong. This is pathetic. We need fiery leaders who can orate and organize. And we need ass-kickers who can stomp all who get between our speakers and the ears and eyes of our people. We get that, we will win.

Quit acting like our cause is silly. Or this is just entertainment. Or we can’t win.

Our “appeal” is Shackleton’s: Because it is hard. Because it is awesome. Because it is glorious.

“Mmmyeh, he seems like a nice guy.” That is my Spadey sneer at your utterly, utterly more foolish than you can imagine stupid puppy eyes at butt-asses like girl Taylor and toodlesome Meh-Spencer. To hell with your conservatism, your excuse-making faggotry. If you’re not White in public, and you don’t despise the jews as our worst enemy, you’re a big old nasty queer with political Q-RID, and should fuck off and die.

Our cause is a jealous cause, not a tolerant cause. We want fighters; high-spirited men, not abject catholic catacomb-crawlers / cabalists of sodom.


Posted by Wandrin:

Hitler just said MacDonald, the A3P, James Edwards, Richard Meh-Spencer, Jared “Polished Turd” Taylor are unqualified to lead us to victory.

Hitler wasn’t in the same situation. He was operating in an environment where most of the necessary meta-political foundation was already in place: anti-Jewish, anti-capitalist, anti-ruling elite, anti-communist, anti-banks etc. He had millions of people to work with who were already proto-radical looking for a flag to follow. His tactics revolve around how to make an impact in that context not how to create that context from scratch.

The context he was operating in may come about automatically in America after the banking collapse—if it gets that far—or it could conceivably (hopefully) come about through cultural warfare but what any budding Hitler needs to get started is a context where there’s millions of proto-radicals.

It’s a two-step.

So the question is are the people you list suitable for the first step—meta politics aimed at creating the right conditions. They may or may not fit the second step if and when the conditions are right but we’re not there yet.


Posted by Linder:

Graham Lister: “Whatever you all have been up to really hasn’t worked has it?”

No, it hasn’t. The important thing is to understand precisely why that is. And the right answer is that white organizing is forbidden by the System. Not legally, of course. But the System always manages to cut it down, sometimes by hook but usually by crook.

And it’s not just White organizing, it’s any organizing that threatens the jewish interests that determine the underlying agenda of the System they refit to their purposes. Catholic Coughlin and black nationalist Garvey got the same treatment too—all the way back 100 years ago! So although in the deepest sense we whites are of course responsible for any failure, in the ordinary sense, our failure is not our failure to organize but our failure to prevent the System from preventing us from organizing, which is a huge difference. It is enemy propaganda repeated, dare I say parroted, by too many on our side that “we are doing it to ourselves.” Oh nonono. We are not. It is most assuredly being done to us, and the real challenge we face is how to overcome that Systemic undermining. Because once we do that, we’re on the road to victory. Because our views are the mass-majority views among whites. That’s the reason the jews have to lie-cheat-murder in the first place, the reason they have to seize all the System choke and control points.

The way that hasn’t been tried, in America, is to use the thinking, approaches and tactics the NS used, which I’ve quoted samples of above. Instead we’ve gone with the polite approach, which does not work. Let’s call it the conservative failure pattern. Our enemies are the biggest liars, cheaters and mass murderers in history. Yet our common assumption seems to be that staying safe, legal, mannerly and polite will defeat them. It will not. I always feel like I’m saying the sky is blue, but there sure seem to be a lot on our side who think it red.

See the thing is, as one of your emotional spasms above shows—the emotional inability to handle something outside the conventional democratic-electoral box—we are psychologically in two camps: thinking in the normal democratic, electoral vein, while speculating in the radical-violent vein. We are loathe to part with the illusion that the normal democratic change channels are open to us. They appear to be open. That’s a crucial part of the System—maintaining the illusion that the processes are neutral machinery open to all. But in fact they are closed.

Look at the votes, in America. If votes mattered, we wouldn’t have forced race-mixing, anti-White job discrimination or open borders. No white majority has ever supported these things. Yet we have them—everywhere. So we kidding ourselves that voting matters. We are playing along with a genocidal lie when we pretend it’s true. The truth we are trying not to see, or reacting emotionally too when it’s stated to us is that voting will only work for the White man when he is physically able to threaten the judge or official or police who try to steal, blunt, queer, reinterpret or reverse the outcome.

Free association, which is the practical legal basis of communal self-defense was lost as a result of a judge reversing settled law. Law that had been in place for decades, duly voted in and adjudged back in the 19th century. Yet a bunch of judges simply reversed it because it thwarted the jewish anti-white agenda of race-mixing. Another 100 examples of legal illegality like that could be cited. But from that point on, the jews were simply big-dogging us. Daring us to do something about their brazen cheating.

That’s where it stands today. We’ve ignored their challenge. And we have seen our societies destroyed due to our lack of intellectual integrity and physical courage.

* * *

Like the other conservatives you see yourself as the servant of the public, the public as some sort of queen, and you the waiter with the silver salver in waiting to bring it some cat food or caviar. Think of yourself and our cause rather as the master of the public. Its leader. But needing the public. Just as Hitler would play it: the future of your (nation) (race) is tied up in whether you personally join us. Look in their eyes. Mean it. No bullshit about “appealing to women” or likesuch horsecrap. We aren’t pandering. We aren’t procuring. We’re fucking leading. That petty political Rep-Dem lying money-shuffle is 100 miles away from this stuff.

It’s the meta-message that matters. Yeah, those cheap weakling cads like Buchanan used and abused you for your money, but we mean it. We will stick by you thick and thin (Parrott hit on this the other day). You can trust us. We won’t run at the first sign of trouble like other conservative cads who sorta sound like us do. They are cowards. We are real men. Trust us and work with us, because we need you to join us so together we can all solve these common problem we all recognize.

The old style guy, the well meaning but hapless Southern conservative, focuses on the nigger that committed the crime. Not the people who created the System that facilitated it. We have to be much smarter than that, and go after the jews (and sellouts) who keep this foul thing running. There is no other example in history more applicable than the NS taking on jews in Germany yesterday. That doesn’t mean every particular has a parallel, but it means in general the jews today follow the same practices in suppressing the natives they did back then, so whatever the Nazis did that worked in Germany then will probably work for us today. Or we could keep on with the conservative failure patterns that have literally never worked a single time in history.

Can you imagine Hitler using terms like Christ-insanity in public, for example?

No, Hitler would not have used it in that time, but times have changed, like you all are always saying. Christ-insanity is weaker than it’s ever been, and many of the white men we can attract, on the left, openly mock and despise it just the way I do, altho for different reasons.

Consider this commentary culled from a poster off some blog:

What I was trying to communicate is the woefully deluded “mindset” of the lovely Pennsty rural White Christian. I am surrounded by this type of benighted, and doomed, creature.

They have not ever lived around non-Whites in their entire lives. They interact with Nons in carefully controlled settings. Workplaces. Churches. Darkies are showing up in Uber Alabaster churches now. The corrupted Marxist shill, serinv as a “minister” is really pimping for the delights of We Are All One Multi Culti lunacy, in even the teeniest little churches. The woefully deluded flocks are nodding their heads, and doing what their Beloved Sheperds are telling them to do. No questions asked. Adopt non-Whites kids. Make best friends with the polite, nicely dressed Darky that has shown up. The Whites couldn’t be friendlier, or more accommodating. Because Being a Racist is now the Cardinal Sin.

I know of a Catholic family, that produced two amazing little White boys. Their Priest told the congregation to Go Forth and Multiply with Guatemalan orphans. So they did. They adopted a Guatemalan female toddler Orc in. The mother can’t stand this child. The kid is not terribly bright—but extremely aggressive.

So—Haughty Blonde ran into this family a few months ago. What have they done now? Why—they adopted a Somalian!

This is not merely crazy – it’s evil.

Yet this is going on all over PA. You can see little Darky kids amidst the most dazzling White families.

And what I was trying to communicate is the steadfast refusal of these Good White Christians to acknowledge that racial differences exist at all. That the Black kid, that is always wreaking havoc, and committing escalating levels of violence, and can never seem to finish the simplest homework task, let alone make passing grades in a very dumbed down curricula—well—it’s always passed off as “Just that one. You cannot judge everybody that way”.

It’s not about White self-loathing, or “White guilt”. It’s about White arrogance, and egoism. These “Liberal/Conservative” Yankee Christian-baptised Whites really truly believe that if they try hard enough, and they give enough—they can “crack the code” —and get Blacks and other non-Whites to be just like them. White. Want the same things, think the same way, do the same things.

They refuse to believe that there are any intractable differences. It’s all wrapped up in false morality—and the source is Pride, and Vanity.

It’s now Revealed Wisdom with my fellow PA Whites that the very worst, deepest Sin is to consider the possibility that racial differences exist and are real. They are perfectly virtuous because they refuse to admit, or even consider, for a single second, that racial differences even exist.

And that God knows, in their hearts, that they really really really don’t mind when that kind-of trashy fast-mouthed Black Boy paws heir pretty blonde daughter—scause that would be wrong. That would be racist.

Capiche?

Yeah, no, this kind of creature we must walk on eggshells around. It would be crazy to treat them as the open enemy they are, we must pretend they’re on our side and suck up to them.

It’s later than some of you think.

The cultural degradation the jews have inflicted on White society has been for the worst in most ways, but not insofar as the jews have degraded the christ cult.

Show us how after ten years the polarization strategy has worked out for you. List your accomplishments.

Yeah… this has got to be trolling. You’re not a dumb enough guy to ask such a dumb question. I’ll indulge you once.

The polarization strategy is not something an individual can do, or a state or local thing, it’s a strategy for a national group operating at the national level. Because, as you know, as a lawyer, that’s where the meaningful political decisions are made.

The point of the strategy is to set up a credible oppositional power to the ruling jews. Right now, the oppositional power is a fake opposition, actually controlled by the ruling jews, after Lenin’s advice (create and lead the opposition yourself).

What WN has always done up until now is work with the conservatives like we’re all part of the same team. All this does is make conservatives rich. The White cause continues to go backward.

So the answer is that the polarization strategy has not been tested in North America. It can’t be until there is a party, or some kind of vehicle, that is both national in scope and willing to adopt it. The unbroken record of failure that is mixing racialism with conservatism suggests to anyone who can think that just maybe we ought to go the other way for once.

Trying to nudge the Republicans into doing the White thing is sad effeminacy unworthy of intelligent men. Fuck them. Start something new and better and take their pie from them and eat it. But you can’t do that when all you offer is a poorer, less respectable version of what they’re doing because you look like pathetic me-tooers—which they do the A3P. You need to go wholly the opposite direction. Come up with swagger, the looks, the bearing, the symbols, the agenda platform—purely White and jealous as all hell. Willing and soon able to vanquish all pretenders. That’s how you do it. It’s not a thing that can be done online, nor is it a thing that can be done alone. It takes a group.

Silver: “Sure, if you ignore the racial conservative whites who won themselves entire continents by virtue of their racial conservative disposition.”

I’m not going to make a big thing of this, Silver, but I don’t believe you’re who you say you are. I don’t believe your tale about your own background.

Your point above is the same fallacy we hear from the christ lunatics claiming their cult is pro white because whites lived along in harmony for centuries under christian dominion. If those whites conquered the continent for racial reasons, then, those racial principles would have preserved the conquest. Instead, those racists forgot everything Silver lies they knew, and quickly lost the continent back to jew-led savages. So clearly the original Americans were not racialists in any other than a direct, immediate sense—i.e., fight off the scalping indians next door. There was never enough thinking put into race in any section of the country, and that, combined with christian lunatical universalism, and the later influx of anti-white communist jews, sealed the deal for anti-Whiteism.

And now we get the desperate claim that, oh, don’t worry, the Republican party and normal voting and Pat Buchanan, and the whole normal regular lineup of trusties is going to save us.

Why hasn’t it then? Where has it been for fifty years? Why has anything changed now?

Rounder, so feared by the feds he is literally forbidden from living in the South, is to be mocked, but Pat Buchanan who has presided over 50 years of dramatic decline while gorgeously pressing a scented handkerchief to his womanly throat is to be respected? On what basis?

Conservatism can’t get the job done. That’s what history shows. There is no second opinion.

The internet has shown up the Patsy Declines for what they are. A lounge act for tired race.

No future in Republicans. No future in conservatism.

Make this your mantra: If it’s christian, conservative or Southern, it’s a non-starter.

That’s the truth.

*   *   *

[Apparently responding to Hunter Wallace:]

The ’50s and ’60s anti-White movement succeeded for one reason: jewish control of the media. Pointing out individual, anecdotal non jews here and there is always an attempt to draw attention away from the jewish root of the anti-White movement. Always.

This jew control of the mass media is the reason that no White strategy based on mirroring the “civil rights” approach of the jew-organized niggers can succeed. The media will never treat the White cause as just. Therefore it will always look bad in the eyes of the tv-macerated majority. There is no solution but taking power, and that means, more than almost anything else, taking the mass media back from our racial enemy.

Just as Churchill wrote as a journalist about communists back in 1919, jews were the driving power. Investigate whichever radical movement you like and you’ll find the same thing.

Only one policy cures jews and the trouble they cause: NO JEWS. JUST RIGHT.

__________

There’s a follow-up to this article here.

“I’m not a Nazi” —Linder

Last month I added two provocative entries quoting Alex Linder, who has been labeled a “neo-Nazi” by ex pro-white activists. But Linder is not a Nazi. These are some recent excerpts taken from his VNN forum:



The swastika can’t be falsified into pro-jew, but it can be worn falsely by jews (see Frank Collins), and it is also associated with Nazism. I don’t wear a swastika because I’m not a Nazi. There’s also the problem that most people, including most declared Nazis, do not understand what Nazism is. I’d include myself among that number. The reason for this is that a very good deal of bad or misleading information out there hides what NS [National Socialism] actually is. I’ve tried to clear this up lower down on the forum. It’s complicated by the fact that the junkmedia call anyone who criticizes jews, much less those, like me, who make a main point of it, “Nazis,” even if those people, like me, aren’t Nazis.

I don’t agree with an all-powerful central state. I support, as I’ve written lower on forum, in a monofunctional overstate focused on defending the race, defined as broadly as needed. Beneath that racial umbrella, I believe in decentralization. Hitler did most emphatically not believe in decentralization.

Just as jews routinely mislabel me a Nazi, WN [white nationalist] enemies routinely mislabel me a libertarian. I don’t know what to do other than simply continue to make the case for the arrangement I think best. I don’t have a cool symbol. Personally I don’t like jewelry and symbols of any sort. Of course one is needed at some point, but that point is not now.

What is needed, so far as WN put forward a positive vision, rather than a critique of AmeriKwa, a ZOG production, is, in my opinion, to stress that our solution is the only one in which you have the independence that befits a white man, and you can exercise your whitemaniacal creativity and intelligence in the white context most suited to its flourishing.

Imagine a country in which you could be both white and a man. Under ZOG, you can be neither white nor a man. Under NS you can be white but not a man. Under libertarianism you can be a man but not white.

I want to be both white and a man, and I think about half of WN feel the same way I do; the rest are either outright NS or social-democrats (European type) or welfare-statists (American type).

Men can agree that we need all-White nations without agreeing on the scope and role of the government within that all-White nation. This is fairly obvious, that there’s no agreement on the deeper how-we-live-together stuff, that there’s a basic split, but it gets confused because so many WN come from conservatism and essentially just add race to their politics, leading outsiders and insiders alike to think that WN is just another petty party political option on the democratic-electoral menu rather than a fundamentally different and all-orienting worldview. Which is why I’ve insisted against all others, basically, that our practical political goal in this period ought to be attacking conservatives and replacing them in the eyes of the people rather than mixing with them and trying to influence them as MacDonald and James Edwards do.

My view is that altho KM and Edwards call themselves (as far as I know) White Nationalists, or at least don’t mind being called that, they are better viewed as implicit conservatives (IC). Because functionally that’s just what they are—conservatives. Their mindset is defending/appealing, not attacking and attracting. While many of the ICs’ positions overlap with WN/NS, the mindset is completely different. I see them as simply repeating failure patterns of the past without ever putting any conscious thought to why the Lindbergh on their party actually failed.

Back to my own view, WhiteMania, WhiteManistand, whatever you want to call it…

In the setup I describe, no one is free to question or undermine the racial basis of the state—if they don’t agree to it, they leave. If they feel they can only be men by living amid third worlders, they have either fought to prevent the birth of our new state, been killed, or fled abroad. If any of these are left after Whites take power, they will be dealt with in one way or another, but in no way will anyone ideologically opposed to the racial basis of the new states be allowed to remain within it.

Race is not a matter that can be compromised, but it is a matter worth killing over. The same goes for Catholics, or other goddists. If their religious weltanschauung demands race mixing, or race-neutralism at all levels, and they are actively going to teach and incite on that demand, then they too will be forced out of the new state. If they can live within the confines of the new founding on an explicit racial basis, then perhaps they can set up a neo-Maryland microstate for their type beneath the umbrella. But it must be absolutely clear that absolutely no political opposition to the basis of the new state will be tolerated. And if it is discovered, the leaders will be executed and the followers expelled or executed. Call it sicut catholicus non.

Beneath that federal level—the collective racial defense umbrella—white men may group themselves as they like, and build such subcommunities as they see fit. They could be welfare-statists, they could be libertarians. They could be 1001 other things I can’t imagine. But they will be responsible for building their own intermediate institutions if they feel they need them. In this way their freedom, honor, need to assume responsibility and manliness are preserved. The central state provides the drainage: keeping anti-White shit on the other side of the borders and out of the streets. The dreams are the responsibility of the men themselves.

To me, what I describe is both possible and desirable. I fancy it is hard where needs hard, and loose where needs freedom. It takes into account both racial laws and economic laws. For the great truth of our time, which has not yet been realized in minds and matter, is that the state is outmoded for nearly all, if not all, purposes. That means the state is the worst way of accomplishing almost any given task. I recommend WN take some time to educate themselves in the limits of politics (read Burke, Kirk, and other classic conservative thinkers) and get up to speed on the latest triumphs made through private, voluntary arrangements (read lewrockwell.com). And then you’ve got VNNF for tying it all together through the insights of the best racialists on the ‘net. Or at least a few dozen good smart white men on the same page seeking the same basic thing.

One counter view to mine is that genuine National Socialism has all the answers any white men need (adapted to their particular nation and circumstances), and we should simply don the swastika with pride and make our way forward.

I don’t agree with that view, which I take to be the view of NSM [NS movement], but it is psychologically right and strong, whereas the whining, remonstrating, complaining approach of, for example, the A3P [American Third Party] ICs is psychologically wrong and weak—mere conservatism with a racial veneer.

That sums up my position. I don’t wear swastika because I’m not a National Socialist. If I were a NS, I would wear it. I’m not NS because I don’t believe the government should be running White men like children. I don’t believe White men need public schools, socialized health care, or anything but collective racial defense out of their central government.

Published in: on September 8, 2011 at 12:48 pm  Leave a Comment  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 239 other followers