web analytics

Hugs in white nationalism?

by Benjamin Noyles

big hugStarting with what to my understanding is the origin of a recent dispute, the appearance of RPN (Canada) President, Sebastian Ernst Ronin, on The White Voice (79:00). Sebastian: “Matt Heimbach is within the White Nationalist community, or Ethno Nationalist community, is a staunch Christian… He will always frame his perception of the world as a Christian”—this forming part of his wider argument that there needs to be an intellectual street fight where differences of opinion are hashed out in blunt terms. In a follow up Traditionalist Youth Hour – 2013-06-24 hosted by Matt Parrot and Matt Heimbach, this was also identified as the source of contention, and so will begin with that.

Both parties have completed a consensus on the “debate”—I don’t think Heimbach would actually disagree with Seb’s point that he is a Christian first, and that it is ideological.

I believe these are some examples that go some way to proving this with previous statements such as “I hate Hitler”; “if a Jew converted to Christianity, I would accept him as a brother in Christ”; (29:00) “I have more against a White Pagan than I would a Black Christian” (32:00). Rather than these being just differences of opinion, I will give Matt the benefit of the doubt that this is part of a thought out and consistent belief—it is polite society to go on that assumption, otherwise how would anybody expect to be treated seriously?

If these comments have been repudiated by supporters as naive folly, then for exactly that reason we should not be carving words of what are called “leaders of the New Right” in gold. I think this is where some people don’t seem to understand the discussion, which hinges on the supposed infallibility of the Hug Box. In my opinion, any change in opinion by such persons is incremental and should they stumble on truth it will be used in such a way as to not be correctly seized upon. It is just wood, hay, and stubble.


Matt Heimbach is a nice Christian kid, and I mean that obviously. I don’t think he drinks, but I would take him to Burger King (and it would be on me). He also has balls, he is trying to make a point, and he looks like an intelligent man—however, those things acknowledged, it still doesn’t help in the slightest. I have a legitimate concern that this thinking is deeply, deeply flawed. It is 100%, subverted race treason, and it is the sort of thing that some point down the line will blow up in everyone’s faces. At that juncture there is nothing personal about that, but it is a fundamental concern.

This is where all the white knights come in. Even though on the face of it this should be an honest and frank exchange, the following is the “unwritten rule” of the “new” White Nationalist movement: Any criticism of a “figure” who identifies as a white racialist in such a time as this where “we” are in numerical weakness—is in itself divisive and counterproductive.

The basis of this position is the argument that we must preserve harmony at any cost, so they do everything possible to reduce friction, despite friction being the concomitant of motion. You would think that a living and expanding movement has a certain quota of difficulties as the result of its life and activity. There is only one human society that has no disagreements; it is called a graveyard. Under this system, inside the “Hug Box”, everybody is a winner, but the penalty is sterility and lack of achievement. The question is who really benefits from this? When you have a situation where instead of embracing criticism you have people reacting emotionally, what is it exactly that they have to hide?

Calling somebody out is not a curse—if it is false the individual only has to dispel that claim. If this criticism cannot be dispelled, then it was justified in the first place. Defection of the kind we have seen is clearly done with the deliberate intention of drawing “personal attacks” —because it has to be asked, “Why are you beyond criticism?” This can produce unkind assertions to the contrary.

I believe that [Matt] Parrott correctly summarised Ronin’s position as follows: “He doesn’t want a group hug, he wants to defeat the various factions of the Ethnic (sic) Nationalist community, and come out victorious.” Knowing Seb, this may very likely be his exact intent and strategy. If this is so, it would seem to be a reasonable tactical progression towards the very objective that Parrott himself identifies.

The truth of the Hug Box is that it is an ugly, poisonous, rubber spiked commode. Why did an “attack” on the views of an individual incite a community response? On the face of it this is strange as the only thing the New Right culture does is debase and criticise—it is in its stated mission. I remember Jonathan Bowden defined as the “critical analysis to revive inegalitarian cultural forms that have been dispriveledged” for what purpose?

“First the fight – then pacifism.” – AH

(Read it all, here.)

22 replies on “Hugs in white nationalism?”

From the Urban Dictionary:

A hugbox is a derogatory term for an environment, usually on the internet, in which a group with similar interests gathers to discuss topics in what they intend to be a safe, comforting, and confrontation-free environment.

What they intend to be a “safe space” almost always turns into a circle-jerk of forced consensus and ends with every member repeatedly expressing the exact same opinion to each other, no matter the topic. Since the community is founded on unconditional love and support no matter how much of a tool a person is, these communities tend to attract tools and rational and useful advice is usually a rarity.

Moderators of these groups are usually extremely militant and do not tolerate even the slightest dissenting opinion. Members of these groups are usually so hypersensitive that the moment a contrary opinion appears the entire community explodes in a total drama shitstorm.

I.e., the exact opposite of what happened last days at OD—insulting trolling beyond belief—and what happens at VNN.

Don’t think Hug Boxism in White Nationalism is much of a worry.
From reading Occidental Dissent I haven’t gotten the impression that Southern Nationalists embrace the White Nationalism label. They call themselves Southern Nationalists instead and they either Christian, atheistic, or agnostic, but seldom Traditional in the evolian sense. It seems to me that the Southern Nationalist group isn’t interested very much in friendship with “Yankees”, as they have it. So be it.

A Confederate Renaissance movement will never gain any traction because they have not repented about joining the criminal war on Germany; and their religious piety impedes them of even seeing what caused the American Civil War: a puritanical version of Christianity betrayed the South.

Holy shit, Noyles! I remember his work with the British Integralists, he’s a good writer. I’m glad he’s still around.

Accusing me of insisting on a “hug box” is especially laughable, given how I’ve been a happy warrior throughout this entire ordeal.

I’ve been eager to answer charges, begging Seb Ronin for a direct debate on a platform of his choice, and have committed to disagreeing with whomever I believe is incorrect (respectfully, when possible) at every step along my activist and polemicist career.

Any criticism of a “figure” who identifies as a white racialist in such a time as this where “we” are in numerical weakness—is in itself divisive and counterproductive.

Heimbach didn’t beg for people to stop calling him out on the Jewish Question. Heimbach released a massive and direct article explaining his position on the Jewish Question and how it had evolved. This directly contradicts Noyles’ nonsense narrative.

Noyles is intelligent enough to know the difference between trying to “hug box” the movement and confronting a hateful crank who’s decided to target and troll movement characters as a singular and spoken modus operandi. Dealing with Seb by directly challenging his specific points and going toe-to-toe against his Scorched Earth campaign is precisely the opposite of the “hug box” approach.

Noyles totally phoned this in, penning a pro-Seb/anti-Matt^2 essay because Seb has insisted that all his comrades pen pro-Seb/anti-Matt^2 essays. More of these hit pieces with more of Seb’s tiresome and thoroughly grokked talking points is surely in the pipeline.

Your attacks on “cranks” in the movement are plenty divisive, so to claim that you shy away from conflict is odd. Some of Heimbach’s defenders have gone down that route but you haven’t really.

It’s also wrong to make Heimbach out to be a naive country kid who can’t think past his church door. His Christian-ism is based on real theory and historical study. I don’t agree with his conclusions, I don’t think his religion can help us period, but it’s as full-fledged an ideological position as any.

One can be a “Christianist” while still being a White Nationalist. Seb’s cynically (and obviously) driving a wedge between Christians who are fighting for our survival and folk religionists who are fighting for our survival.

Why Heimbach, a man in his very early 20’s, is being held accountable for everything he’s ever said during his rapid intellectual development while Seb is being allowed to skate by with his most recent position is beyond me.

Mere weeks ago, Seb was totally committed to collaborating with Christians. Now he’s hostile to Christians. Less than five years ago (not that long for a septuagenarian), he was a Leftist partisan hack, having spent his entire adult life without going on record one single time in support of White identity and interests.

Think about that. In one corner you have a street fighting White Nationalist youth who actually fought the enemy on the street a few weeks ago. In the other corner, you have an elderly shut-in who was anti-racist his entire adult life, and who’s performed no noteworthy real world action.

It’s a simple call for me.

P&P TV seriesBy the way, I am not reposting Noyles’ article for any personal grudge against Heimbach, but as a sort of postscript of why these days I’ve decided on an all-out, non-hug criticism on those WNsts who defend homosexual couplings (which I believe contributes to the destruction of our most sacred institution: marriage).

I’m actually skeptical of anyone who claims to be a racialist first and a Christian second. It doesn’t seem at all consistent with the doctrine (unless you’re Christian Identity in which case it actually does make sense).

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Heimbach still considers himself a Christian first. He insists on living in a Christian society, but also an all-White society. This goes back to the Kinist idea of national boundaries as God’s will, and a multiracial Babylon as a society of evil. Nonetheless, he believes that Jesus was sent to every human nation, and that all humans who accept his teaching are “brothers in Christ”, united by their religion.

If I’m accurate Heimbach’s stance certainly seems defensible scripturally and historically, and does leave him working towards the defense of our race. It’s more or less the Southern Christian stance of the Confederacy and the KKK and so on.

I don’t think it will succeed in the long run though. I think Christianity is just too weak of a doctrine now. It can’t muster crusade-level fanaticism against non-White Christians, and the Muslims and Jews would rather convert than leave. It can be racial but it can’t put race center-stage, and it needs to be there. It can’t go Turner Diaries on a bunch of Christian “brothers”, it can’t allow soul-having humans to suffer for the sake of soulless trees, it has no reason to fight dysgenics, it will always be defensive.

I don’t believe in pagan-ish religious pluralism either. First time it was tried the Christians wrecked them. Then came “secularism” and the Muslims invaded Europe, not that secular Europe was really worth defending. Separation of church and state is a joke and if paganism was better designed it wouldn’t have been destroyed by the Abrahamic religions they resent. I’m completely opposed to Sebastian on this matter; there must and will be a White Euro Ummah. Only a fortress wall can stop miscegenation from rotting us piece by piece.

It can’t go Turner Diaries on a bunch of Christian “brothers”, it can’t allow soul-having humans to suffer for the sake of soulless trees…

This is good.

Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:

No Christianity, no pagan-ish religious pluralism, no “secularism”. White Euro UMMAH? We know where this is leading, don’t we? Islam-on-its-head…

Yes, Arianism is a nearly direct opposite of the judeo-islamic worldview. We love beauty, they hate beauty, we love strength, they love mass, we love science, they love dogma. etc..

That was a reference to the RPNA’s position, by the way. I don’t think we should adopt Islam or anything, but it’s the world’s strongest religion at the moment and probably liberalism’s biggest ideological rival.

Factor in our race’s destructive capabilities in both conventional and psychological warfare and a meta-national racial identity – a “dar al-Arya” of sorts – becomes a necessity. Not to mention an inevitability; language is becoming a non-issue (the Internet is forcing everyone to learn English) and even if geography remains a physical barrier through Peak Oil electronic communication will still be near-costless. Even Africa is putting up all sorts of cell-phone towers now.

I think this meta-national identity must have both an explicitly racial and explicitly religious element; the former for obvious reasons and the later to help ensure, among other things, that this identity is not undermined by some other doctrine claiming to “overrule” it by appeal to a higher power. You can in fact try this as a religious zealot or a rabid atheist, but in either case you can’t show “tolerance” for contrary religious conceptions.

Sebastian might not like Christianity, with cause, but it was absolutely capable or uniting our race psychologically without putting it into a centralized state or setting up extensive (energy-intensive) trade networks. Even Chechar’s theory is based on the psychological ubiquity of Christianity, which then slowly began to poison us.

Perhaps Islam is the strongest alongside Liberalism, but Islam is not strong and neither is Liberalism. It’s just that the rest of the world is so dam weak.

Take Islam, there fighting each other, there countries are being invaded by the Americans and there creating Anti-Islamic sentiment that is even sucking in some Liberals.

So if Europe becomes a powerful, imperialist state, then Islam will fall like a drunkard on ice.

Now, I agree with Meta-Nationalism, mostly because we would end up with another civil war if he did otherwise. The tough question will be, who can belong to our family and who will not.

Are the Russians suitable, or will they go there own way? How about the Greeks, they hate German involvement, they are clearly a lot more different. The most we can hope for at this time is a strong Europe, even if not everyone wants to be a player.

Well in some ways Islam is inherently dysfunctional, partly because it was written over a millennium ago, partly because it developed by Arabs, and partly because it just wasn’t that well thought out. Most of the people who practice it aren’t all that bright either; Muslim Blacks act pretty similar to Christian Blacks, for example.

Islam is very difficult to undermine from without though, it’s held up better than Christianity and much better than European Paganism. It’s a total system, there are no chinks in its armor, it doesn’t allow the thin end of a wedge to begin wriggling its way in under some pretense. Or at least, it’s stronger in this regard than any other thought-system still operating. Even Marxism and Capitalism take turns undermining each other. I guess you could say “Consumerism” is powerful but that’s like saying dead people never lose a fight…

A “dar al-Arya” might not prevent all intra-racial conflict, and may not even want to, but it would certainly set restrictions. No nuking each other. No allying with foreign races. No promotion of homosexuality through state-sponsored subversion (pioneered by the KGB, later adopted by the CIA). No super-plagues. No eating all the ocean’s fish. That kind of thing. They might be administratively independent but will run on the same operating system, as Chechar said of Christianity.

The meta-nation would de facto include all White ethnicities eventually, just as every White ethnicity adopted monotheism and later liberalism. Language and other communication barriers are disappearing rapidly, the only nations that will reject the new order will be the ones whose racial identities aren’t strong enough to avoid miscegenation anyways (what would probably happen if the Russians followed Dugin’s “Eurasianism”, or if White Americans followed Rush Limbaugh style patriotism).

This doesn’t mean there won’t be ethnic (Russian) and sub-racial (Slavic) divisions, just that these divisions will be different in kind from the civilization-level racial division that divided Christendom from the heathens and divides Western Civilization from the diversity. It will be the hardest line since the human-animal division, once the age of biopolitics begins.

How exactly this new quasi-theocracy will work is still open for debate. It could be united by Christianity but I think it would have to be something really unusual, like Christian Identity, and I’d be very surprised if it could get enough traction. It could be based on a form of unusually intolerant paganism (this is your pantheon, no you cannot add “Jesus” to it), like Martinez advocates. It could be atheistic, explicitly denying the existence of any higher power (like the Soviet Union) or even use some type of “hard agnosticism” that explicitly denies human ability to gain knowledge about a higher power. It could be based on the work of the Traditionalists, allowing Christian or pagan interpretations but only insofar as they fit into a rigidly defined Traditionalist framework, with no tolerance for “counter-initiation” or other religious subversions. It could be an entirely new formulation, like Pierce’s Cosmotheism or Klassen’s Creativity, though I doubt they’ll get very far without at least making use of prior symbolism.

The one thing it cannot be is religiously pluralistic, because it must be sure of itself. It must have a skeleton that goes from the head to the toes. It must say that treason is evil, or worse than evil, and give you the reason for it (not a reason, the reason). It must tell “the kid whose main concern is whether the consumers of the world – whether the happy Coke drinkers – will be any less happy in a world without Whites” in absolute terms that race is non-negotiable, and that those who work against us will be destroyed by heaven’s command.

Why should the sky of men be filled with gods? Why not just as cloudless, “painful blue” sky as Vidal’s Julian described it when reaching Greece (in a recent WDH entry)? Why not rescuing NS and leave mysticism for the Nuremberg, castle rituals of the SS?

I like gods okay as “archetypes”, sort of like patron saints or revered ancestors, but I don’t like the way monotheists handle it (an omnipotent force can’t realistically seem human-like) and literally expecting giant men to live on a mountain somewhere is obviously untenable.

My main point however is this: whatever religious conception you’re going to use has to be stuck with, because trying to make moral demands when you can’t come up with a consensus on why they’re being made leads to disaster. The Jews swarmed all over that, and so will anyone else looking for an edge. Look at all this Counter-Currents business as of late; the “New Right” stance is incomplete and it allows something that many of would think of as self-evident (homosexuals should not be given political recognition) to be contested.

If you believe in a single god you must insist that there is only one god, and that your conception of him is more or less correct. If you believe in 9 gods you must insist that the number of gods is 9, not 8 or 10, and you have to agree on which one is the leader. If you believe in reincarnation or an afterlife you must insist that it is true and that it works however you think it works. You have to agree on whether or not evolution is true, and how humans relate to the rest of the natural world, and how conflict is to be handled. You need to have a reason for your goals, not just a list of assorted justifications you can trot out depending on the audience.

You need to be willing to state outright that your ideological and theological enemies are wrong, and that you are right, and explain what the point of contention is. If you believe there are no gods in the sky you cannot give the people who wrongly believe there are gods the “respect” that secular society demands, because why should anyone care about whether homosexuality makes it hard for families to prosper when their god has decreed that homosexuality is acceptable? How can you condemn a behavior while refusing to denounce religious conceptions that permit such behavior? And how can outright rebuking bad religious conceptions – some having existed for centuries if not millennia – be compatible with any avowed secularism or religious tolerance?

Obviously “secularism until their religion is wrong” isn’t secularism at all, as even the most dogmatic of religions have their own debates and interpretations. You could note that the “secular” West still doesn’t allow the Muslims to execute people with rocks, and thus de facto declares the Koran to be wrong, but this is just liberalism’s characteristic hypocrisy. The very idea of secularism must necessarily lead to social anomie, because it’s impossible to make definite moral (or even positive) statements while acknowledging the “right” of others to believe in a god or metaphysical system which denies that statement’s truth.

Sorry if I’ve gotten too wordy. I guess the gist of it is that a worldview is powerless unless it seizes the highest point, the apex of all authority, whether called God, Nature, Reason, or Fate. A worldview that’s unwilling to assert a particular religious stance is declaring itself subordinate to one that is.

Liberals of every religion consider “moderation” more important than the specifics of the faith. I’ve come to consider fundamentalism the first principle, the necessary ground for making any further assertions. That the “New Right” has become so paralyzed on the homosexual issue illustrates the problem, I think, with trying to avoid dogma.

But the Nazis did alright without a new religion, right? Why couldn’t we just follow their lead and also use my archetype of the eternal feminine (see the sidebar, “This blog in a nutshell”): a sort of panentheism as I explain in my lead paragraph to “God and white nationalism”, something without the formalities of a theist religion, akin to Manu Rodríguez ideal (have you read Manu’s “The god who unleashes” also on the sidebar?).

I have, and I’m not really a theist. I’m more along the lines of Pierce or Heidegger or something. The problem with trying to emulate the NSDAP on this one is that they were able to use a lot of “meta-political” work done prior. They had Kant and Hegel and Nietzsche and so on, which wasn’t ideal but was at least a start.

Their religious dogmatism was mostly limited to things like banning freemasonry or not letting atheists into the SS, which wasn’t “separation of church and state” but wasn’t exactly a reformation either. They had to deal with the same problem as us: ending nihilistic atheism through something besides Christianity. It requires a new way of thinking, but I don’t see how the German people of 1940 could have been ready for it. They hadn’t witnessed the collapse of their entire civilization, they weren’t going to believe that God was dead just because Nietzsche claimed it. Now we know.

Maybe I’m being a little too bombastic; I don’t really care whether “the Spirit proceeds from the Son who proceeds from the Father” or “both the Spirit and the Son proceed from the Father”, but that doesn’t mean religion shouldn’t be debated in the public sphere, as a matter of right and wrong, and not merely a “personal opinion” to be tucked away. I see secularism as a sort of spiritual pacifism, and pacifism on the highest questions (is there a God?) trickles down to even the most basic issues (who are we to say homosexuals can’t marry?).

So let me think of some fundamental questions that need to be answered: Why does it matter if the White race exists, if the rest of the humans are happy? Why does it matter if the White race continues to exist if I personally live my life out in comfort? Why should I be concerned with the White race if it only recently evolved from our ape-like ancestors, knowing that change is a part of the universe? Why should I be concerned with the existence of the White race if every White person is mortal, and preserving each one is futile? Why should I be concerned with preserving the White race if all White people who live will suffer, some horribly, and none would suffer if they were wiped out? Why should I as an individual put effort into helping my race when it’s very unlikely that my personal effort will tip the scales? Why should I bother living at all, if my life is not immediately entertaining to me?

These are big questions. Maybe no one in the 1930s would ask why Germans must survive, but Pierce’s student has become the norm in 2013. I don’t think we can just give a smattering of different reasons and call it good enough. We’re going to need answers, and we’re going to actually need to agree on what the answers are, and how we got them, and that means no separation between religion and politics. Incidentally, this also makes a Christian-pagan-atheist alliance very difficult, and I think each position will have to divorce itself from and, at most, work in parallel with the others. Eventually something will become “king of the hill” and it will flip the world upside-down.

Comments are closed.