Or:
The New Right rejects winning.
There is no winning without violence.
Below, Alex Linder’s retort to Greg Johnson’s manifesto, “New Right vs. Old Right” (video here; textual version here), originally posted in Vanguard News Network Forum that in October of 2012 I excerpted for my Addenda. It merits inclusion here.
Keywords: OR (Old Right), NR (New Right). Linder’s retort appears unindented:
[In his manifesto Johnson wrote:]
So how does the New Right differ from Fascism and National Socialism? This is a vital question, because of the intense stigmas attached to these movements since the Second World War. The North American New Right, like the European New Right, is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.
This is why Greg can only describe Golden Dawn as “interesting.” If he starts saying successful, then he has to observe that, contrary to what he’s imagining the NR to be, GD does embrace party politics and daily operations that are very similar to what the OR carried on.
We believe that such a world can be achieved through gradual and humane programs of territorial partition and population transfer.
We believe that these aims can come about by changing people’s consciousness, i.e., by persuading enough people in positions of influence that everyone has a stake in ethnonationalism.
In less grandiose terms, NR is not to provide leaders but to influence some vague elite, either the existing or one yet to arise. But not actually be that elite itself. In other words, the NR are kibitzers—people who stand around the table and tell the men actually in the game how to play their cards. I mean, it sounds great when Johnson lays it out, but really, in more prosaic terms, he’s just going to offer more free advice. The NR’s not actually getting in the ring. Like, you know, Golden Dawn.
Metapolitics refers to what must come before the foundation of a new political order.
So says Johnson. Because it fits what he wants to do—multiply essays. But in fact, the change in order comes from being involved in all aspects of the process, not just writing and thinking. All these matters, as much of them as can be engaged, go on simultaneously.
That is what we saw with the OR Nazis, and what we see with the Neo-Old Right Golden Dawners. Creating a new political order is not the hands-off affair Johnson imagines it to be.
Does Golden Dawn need some “metapolitical” change before it can begin working to transform Greece? Hell no! Whites in Western countries don’t need their consciousness transformed, they need potatoes. Potatoes and protection. They need cooking oil and champions. People who will help them vanquish enemies and feed them potatoes and milk when they are hungry. The state’s not there—but Golden Dawn is. The real-world physical help and political leadership provided by Golden Dawn will do more to transform Greek consciousness and culture than 1,000 clever essays by Brown Johnson. And at some level he knows this.
He does not have the character to admit that his approach is not, in fact, a political strategy but a personal declaration about where he and his group are going to put their effort. They’re going to write essays. Lengthy important reviews of important new Batman movies; crypt-keeping of the same-old goth writers and ancient German thinkers everyone’s long familiar with. Rehash after furious rehash, but no engagement with actual politics. I’d rather have Golden Dawn’s feta-politics than Greg Johnson’s meta-politics anyday. And so would average Greeks. And so would Whites in all nations.
“Metapolitics must come before a change in the political order.” Johnson asserts this without proving it. It is merely his opinion. Like there’s something new in human relations waiting to be discovered and transmitted, and everybody will go, holy shit, I never thought of that before.
But it’s not like that at all. We just need ordinary politics, carried on by heroes, not new philosophies, new ideas, anything new. Just better champions, tighter organization, more loyalty, greater bravery. Honestly, Greg, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but 10,000 more 10,000-word exegeses of the gothic in Lovecraft aren’t going to produce political change.
Metapolitics refers to what must come before the foundation of a new political order. Metapolitics breaks down into two basic activities. First, there is education: articulating and communicating forms of white nationalism tailored to the interests and outlooks of the full array of white constituencies.
Well, that’s the theory, but in reality you have pitched and will continue to pitch to an extremely narrow, if high-level, sector. You have the words right, but you can’t deliver on them. Do you imagine that because you serve up a 5,000-word exegesis on “The Dark Knight Rises” that you are reaching the masses who actually attend such a movie? You’re not.
All you’re reaching are intellectuals of a certain bent. The original VNN actually achieved what you imagine you are trying to achieve. You can’t repeat its success because it involves qualities neither you nor your writers possess (wit, humor, ability to satirize), and because, for reasons of sniffishness, you won’t go low enough to fish where the whitefish are. Your offering is monolevel, precisely in the way George Lincoln Rockwell advised against, even if your words make obeisance to the full-spectrum offerings he advised.
Second, there is community organizing…
Ok. But not party politics. As Golden Dawn shows, they can easily be the same thing. Hamas showed that too. As did the OR national socialists. What you appear to mean by community organizing are the private salons, like the one you’re holding this weekend in California.
Second, there is community organizing, meaning the cultivation of real-world communities that live according to our vision in the present and may serve as the seeds of a New Order to come.
Except that’s not possible because of the law, which can only be changed by the politics you specifically state you will not be involved in.
The primary metapolitical project of the North American New Right is to challenge and replace the hegemony of anti-white ideas throughout our culture and political system.
And this magician is going to do this by eschewing political involvement in favor of multiplying essays. The butt baby of David Copperfield and Blaine wouldn’t even dream of trying to sell an illusion this fragrant. Get this again to fully appreciate its absurdity: without owning any tv stations, or radio stations, or any elected officials, Greg Johnson and his crew of anonymities are going to “replace the hegemony of anti-white ideas throughout our culture and political system.”
And they’re going to achieve this without any political involvement, simply by influencing (his word, not mine) some vague elite—not being the elite. They don’t propose anything as icky as leading an actual struggle, but by influencing some unknown mass of people.
Presumably there is a body of men out there just waiting for 5,000-word exegeses of Batman movies in order to break from their thrall and lead our race to victory. We’re a long way, truly, from simple Greeks out working the fields, collecting watermelons and onions to feed their hungry neighbors. Nah, that’s not the stuff that provides the cultural and political transformation that “must” precede change in the political order. Too mundane.
The entire cultural and political mainstream—including every shade of the “respectable” political spectrum—treats white racial consciousness and white self-assertion as evil.
As always, Johnson acts like other ideas have triumphed because they persuaded people, when the known truth is that the vast majority has no real beliefs other than to avoid pain, and will generally go along with whatever comes out of the loudspeaker. That’s the truth. It’s just too boring for the Johnsons of the world to accept. You can’t win a cultural battle where you don’t control the mass media and you refrain from actual politics.
Our goal is to critique and destroy this consensus and make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic instead, so that no matter what political party wins office, white interests will be secured.
And you’re going to do this without being involved in politics, without controlling any mass media, purely by the brilliant persuasiveness of your ideas. D is for delusional.
Our goal is a pluralistic white society in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them.
Meanwhile Whites are shot on the street daily by feral niggers, to be redundant, the white presidential candidate takes it up the ass from jews while sucking off niggers, and not a single word contrary to the existing order of things can be printed in the mass media. You’re going to change that by eschewing politics for essay-writing. One is reminded of those cult nuts’ attempt to levitate the Pentagon by prayer.
There are systematic analogies between the Old Right and the Old Left, and between the New Right and the New Left.
The Old Right and Old Left had widely divergent aims, but shared common means: hierarchical, ideological political parties organized for both electioneering and armed struggle; one-party police states led by dictators; the elimination of opposition through censorship, imprisonment, terror, and outright murder, sometimes on a mind-boggling industrial scale.
Greggy, you don’t seem to understand that you can’t just pick and choose how you fight. If the other guy is willing to cheat, lie, steal and murder—and you’re not—guess who’s going to win?
You’re simply high-handedly declaring that you’re too good for anything as icky as actual fighting—which is merely a sign of your personality problems, and your lack of self-awareness, but what’s unforgivable is the alacrity with which you throw your betters under the bus.
Does their behavior at some level shame you? The NS not only wrote better essays than you, they thought better thoughts, and they fought better fights. Golden Dawn shows the proper relation between old and new right, if you must insist on that distinction. You can verbally camouflage it all you like with pretty words, but your retreat into mere essaying is the farthest thing from an actual political strategy. It’s just your way of rationalizing your own choices.
Yes, in the case of classical National Socialism, revisionists argue that many of these atrocities are exaggerated or made up out of whole cloth. But revisionism about the Second World War is really beside the point, because the terroristic, imperialistic, genocidal impulse exists in National Socialism today. For instance, latter-day National Socialist William Pierce routinely pooh-poohed the Holocaust. But he was willing to countenance real terrorism, imperialism, and genocide on a scale that would dwarf anything in the 20th century. That spirit is what we reject.
All this does is show that you are incapable of loyalty. You will throw anyone under the bus if you think it will make you look better. The Nazis deserve respect, even if you’re not a Nazi. You don’t give it to them. All you care about is that you think they make you look bad. Let me assure you, Gregster—you alone are fully competent to make yourself look bad. I guess you could say you have achieved a metapolitical success in how I view you.
You reject the “spirit.” Pierce recognized jews were attempting to genocide us, and wanted to return the favor. Guns to a gunfight, is all that is. Your view is that fights can be conducted by whatever means the fighter finds comfortable; there are no objective criteria that need to be taken into consideration. So you don’t need to worry that you control no tv or radio, you just ignore that, and big it up that your website and books are going to create a cultural revolution. This is not serious stuff—when put forward as a political strategy. The very concept of metapolitics is bogus, because it always comes down the technics of influence, and here the control of the loudspeakers (cable tv, etc., and the political system) are determinative. Sorry, Greggy. There’s no escaping politics.
Yes, there were degrees of totalitarianism. The Communist abolition of private property entailed a far greater disruption of and intrusion into private life than Fascism or National Socialism, which merely sought to harmonize private property and private enterprise with the common good whenever they conflicted. Fortunately, hard totalitarianism—even the softest version of hard totalitarianism—is neither desirable nor necessary to secure the existence of our people, so we reject it.
You can’t know a priori what will in fact be necessary since you haven’t even begun the fight and in fact expressly reject fighting.
It is instructive to look at how the New Left has handled the mind-boggling, heart-rending, stomach-churning atrocities of the Old Left. The best New Leftists do not deny them. They do not minimize them. They do not pin their hopes on “Gulag revisionism” or rehabilitating the reputation of Pol Pot. They simply disown the atrocities. They step over them and keep moving toward their goals.
Which is not a decision they make, as you imply, but an opportunity that is only possible because they control the organs of public opinion. They can’t be forced to defend their record when nobody else is allowed a chance at the mike. Of course they’re not going to talk about their record of mass murder.
But you’re ignoring what lets them get away with it, in order to further the frankly ridiculous illusion that your side can make a similar evasion. First, as the revisionists you’ve thrown under the bus have shown, there’s nothing to evade. Second, the enemy can use that same media monopoly to force your side to respond to its attacks or else simply accept the damage they do. Why do you keep acting like the playing field is level, and everything is a matter of the choices we make? You act, per the Jared Barnum Taylor who associated with this school of stupidity, like there is no enemy. And we don’t need to take him into account. We just put on our best writin’ suit and pen up Another Great Essay! And if we do enough… we win! You’re a cheesedog, Johnson.
This is exactly what we propose to do. We are too busy resisting our own genocide to tie ourselves to defending the mistakes and excesses of the Old Right.
Johnson is a natural-born conservative. Attacking is not in him. The best he can do is evade and avoid, and get back to arranging the pretty flowers.
They are simply not our problem. To borrow a phrase from Jonathan Bowden, “We’ve stepped over that.” Our enemies keep throwing it down in our path, and we just keep stepping over it.
Why not pick it up and smash them over the head with it until they’re dead? Then you won’t have to dance, Chinaman, dance like a good little albino monkey.
The New Left retained the values and ultimate goals of the Old Left. They also retained elements of their philosophical framework. They then set about spreading their ideas throughout the culture by means of propaganda and institutional subversion. And they won. Aside from Cuba and North Korea, orthodox Communism is dead. Capitalism seems everywhere triumphant. And yet in the realm of culture, leftist values are completely hegemonic. The left lost the Cold War, but they won the peace.
New Left and Old Left is as bogus a distinction as Old Right / New Right. What we’re discussing here as though it’s an ideas-battle is actually a matter of institutionalization of power.
If the left owns all the satellite uplinks, and the politicians and preachers and teachers, then of course it can get away with “soft” means. The hard work of killing people has already been done. But that doesn’t mean it won’t have immediate recourse to this option wherever it needs to. Or that in any way rejects the use of any means to get the job done.
Old? New? Bullshit: same. It’s you, the fool with no power, who is overtly, publicly rejecting the struggle for power that is in fact the only way your side could free itself or regain control of the apparatuses; the control of which is what actually provides this influence you desire to effect.
See, Greggy, people don’t think. Very few of them. You are hugely overrating how thoughtful people are, and hugely underrating how much their meaningless views are simply authority-tropisms. Whatever the tv says to stay away from is what the mass-paramecium fears to be involved with. It’s not deeper than that. People are not intellectuals. They will be influenced by brave leadership, in struggles such as we have before us, and nothing else. Certainly not by disembodied idea-ists who seek not to lead but to influence. Your aim to influence, which is wifely effeminacy, will be taken as weakness by the masses, and rightly so. The masses, as OR Hitler knew, require a strong hand. They take only a masculine impress, and reject what is soft, weak, unsure.
I hate to have to explain this to you, young master Gregerson, but… when you look at Hitler, bublele? You’re, yr yr… looking up. Not down. Up. Yeah. Sorry ol’ Uncle Al has to break that news to you.
Since in the West, both the Old and the New Left functioned primarily as a vehicle for Jewish ethnic interests, it would be more precise to say that Jewish values are hegemonic throughout the culture, even on the mainstream right.
The New Left and New Right have widely divergent aims, but very similar means, namely the pursuit of political change through transforming ideas and culture, aiming at the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony.
This is just fruity beyond the point of acceptability. Premise is there’s a real intellectual debate goin’ on and wez gonna win it. Yeah, except there is no debate because they own all the tv, radio and newspapers. Not only are you giving even a passing to their impregnable technical superiority in dissemination positioning, and legal context, you continue to pretend that the left’s power is ultimately based on ideas rather than physical suppression of resistance. This is manifestly not true, and if you disagree, take your message to the street and see. But of course you don’t even dare to get into that game, and you advise others against it. You’re going to win it all growing flowers in your own little hothouse. It is to laugh.
The New Right rejects the totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide of the Old Right.
As well say, the New Right rejects winning. There is no winning without violence. Willing and able recourse to violence is how the jews took power. Ideas are merely an expression of jewish power, not the source. If I may use the phrase the quitter-conceder Weber used. Jews dominate this country because they are willing to use violence against competitors. And now they have the cops in their hands to do their dirty work for them. How are you going to change that? You’ll say something fruity about new and different and better ideas, but this is nothing. This is just an academic pretending that politics is a battle of ideas rather than a battle.
But we do not reject their political model: the ethnically and culturally homogeneous, hierarchically organized, organic society.
You just reject the only means by which it can brought about. Cuz the world has changed so much back then. Instead of fighting, today men just listen and vote.
We want a world in which every distinct people has such a homeland, including the Jews.
Great. Jews are for racism for them, and mongrelism for us. And you’re for racialism for everybody. You bring a knife to a gunfight and expect to win.
Nor do we reject the theoretical frameworks of Fascism and National Socialism, which today are more relevant and better-grounded in science and history than ever before.
Nor do we reject such figures as Hitler and Mussolini. Objectivity requires that we recognize their virtues as well as their flaws. We have much to learn from them. We will never repudiate awakened white people just to curry favor with the Bourgeoisie.
This is particularly ludicrous. He’s just gotten done rejecting basically everything the OR did, and now he’s hypocritically talking about how he embraces the very people, philosophies and behaviors he just rejected.
Johnson has come to make a habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth. “It is not enough that you believe, you must fight,” said one famous OR guy. “I believe, but I will not fight,” saith Johnson, who then rotated yet again and expressed his support for Hitler’s words. You need to decide, Greg, whether you’re a Big Johnson or a Little Johnson. Well, you have decided. You just can’t face the truth about your decision. I urge you to face it, and to reconsider.
I have received some gentle ribbing about including Hitler and Mussolini among the birthdays we commemorate, as it smacks of the totalitarian cult of personality. But as an editor, I find that birthdays are ideal, regularly-occurring occasions to discuss important figures. They also produce spikes in search engine traffic, which we want to capture. Besides, we commemorate many birthdays, and it would be craven to discuss people like Ezra Pound or Knut Hamsun but ignore the people they were imprisoned for following. So we will keep commemorating their birthdays until, eventually, everybody does.
Ok, that makes sense. It is good to have heroes. Respected figures. Even if you disagree with them on things. But you undermined The Tradition when you draw an indelible line between your new thing and theirs. The psychology of celebrating them while simultaneously distancing yourself from them conveys a mixed message that is confusing, and unnecessarily so in light of the found facts you reject.
One of the main motives of the New Left’s move from politics to culture was disappointment with the proletariat, which was so effectively mobilized by Fascism and National Socialism, not to mention the centrist regimes of the Cold War era.
The New Left believed they represented the interests of the workers, but their approach was entirely elitist. They focused their attention on influencing the college-educated middle and professional classes, because these people have disproportionate influence on the rest of society, particularly through education, the media, and popular culture.
It’s a little more than influence. The left bought up the organs of opinion, took over the colleges, teachers’ colleges and law schools, and bribed both political parties. This left it, over a few decades, in position to dictate ideology to the right half the bell curve, the college grads.
The left doesn’t influence people, it threatens them. If you don’t agree, you will be weeded out of their system. If you’re in the system and found out, you will be harassed and fired. To speak of persuasion and influence is far too soft. Dominate + paranoia + occupied power position + owning all the loudspeakers = suppressing all resistance.
You can call that winning the debate, but that’s not accurate. Preventing any debate from happening is accurate. To truly understand what the left does is to observe that it goes far, far beyond dictating political positions. It goes to the point of preventing bad thoughts from ever forming by developing techniques intended to stunt the mind: bad ways to read. And if the mind makes it over this hurdle, then all it has to read are PC-scripted textbooks. All it hears on radio/tv are jew-written news and fiction scripts.
The left hasn’t won the debate, it has taken over and smashed all competing views, and done what it could to destroy the very idea of idea-competition. Johnson’s tone does not accurately convey the physiological-political reality of the left, which is utterly jewish, which is to say driven by hatred and paranoia. Any two white men speaking unrecorded by ZOG = conspiracy.
Likewise, the New Right represents the interests of all whites, but when it comes to social change, we need to adopt a resolutely elitist strategy. We need to recognize that, culturally and politically speaking, some whites matter more than others. History is not made by the masses. It is made out of the masses. It is made by elites molding the masses. Thus we need to direct our message to the educated, urban middle and professional classes and above.
Simple question, Greg. Given that Hitler, per the essay you published by Andrew Hamilton specifically did not try to attract the bourgeois at the start of his campaign to liberate Germany, and given that Golden Dawn in 2012 Greece is finding great success in going out in the streets to help the poor, why should anyone believe your way will work?
Especially given that you have no way at all to influence the bourgeoisie through the colleges and grad schools? Why are cowardly, selfish, materialist upper-middle-class bourgeois with a lot to lose going to flock to your standard (as opposed to poor or lower-class people with comparatively nothing to lose)?
There is no shortage of Old Right-style groups with populist messages targeting working class and rural constituencies. But we need to go beyond them if we are going to win.
In America? Really? Who are these groups?
Who I am speaking for here? When I say “we,” I am speaking for more than just myself, but not for all or even most of our writers or readers. There is no presumption that every author we publish approves of our agenda, in whole or in essence. (Indeed, many of them are dead.) Nor is there any presumption that any author agrees with any other author published here. Publication here does, however, imply that I, as the Editor-in-Chief, think that a given work advances our agenda directly or indirectly: directly, by articulating a viewpoint that I would endorse as true; indirectly, by helping us build an intellectually exciting movement.
That means that this so-called New Right is an artificial construct of essays written by bourgeois individualists, not any genuine political school or tendency. It could just as well be called Greg Johnson’s Fan Club. Or Greg Johnson’s Racialist Reader’s Digest.
And the North American New Right is an intellectual movement, not a fixed doctrine. The goals are fixed. The basic intellectual strategy is fixed. But everything else is in movement: usually toward our goals, but sometimes just whirling around the dance floor for the sheer joy of it (which, in a subtler way, also moves toward our goals).
Yeah, I’m not feeling the brio in the forced tendentiousness of those 5,000-word Batman overintellectualizations.
There is a wide array of different and often incompatible intellectual traditions within the New Right. We have followers of the Traditionalism of Julius Evola and René Guénon as well as other thinkers who emphasize a metaphysics of eternal form. We have followers of non-Traditionalist, flux and history-oriented philosophers like Nietzsche, Spengler, and Heidegger. We have believers in decline and believers in Promethean progressivism. We have Darwinian biologists and scientific materialists squared off against metaphysical dualists. We have atheists, and we have representatives of all schools of religion, Christian and pagan, Eastern and Western.
We need this kind of diversity, because our goal is to foster versions of white nationalism that appeal to all existing white constituencies.
Yeah, all white constituencies except the 95% who aren’t intellectuals.
We can speak to multitudes because we contain multitudes.
Eh, not really. A variety of proud opinions, maybe, but a very thin and specific type.
How does the North American New Right relate to Old Right-style groups in North America and around the globe?
Easy answer: you won’t fight. You won’t politic. You’ll just scribble and scribble and scribble some more.
And how do we relate to various democratic nationalist parties in America and Europe?
Alex Kurtagic has recently argued that democratic party politics can perform the metapolitical functions of education and community organizing, thus there is no fundamental contradiction between metapolitics and party politics.
True, altho truer would be to observe that metapolitics doesn’t exist. The problem Whites face is not philosophical, it’s that they don’t have power and their enemies do. Pretty simple thing. Of course political campaigning involves education and community organizing, but these are merely the byproducts of pursuing office. And that goal means that all educational and organizing efforts must be dominated by the election cycle and the political issues of the day. Your blathering looks obscene next to what Golden Dawn is doing every single day in the field:
• protecting people
• beating up enemies
• setting up new offices
• fighting fires in rural areas
• checking out animal abuse carried on by illegals
• helping the government patrol the border
• printing and passing out newspapers
• posting letters from Greeks
• posting ideological texts as lessons
• smacking commie cunts in the face
• rebutting big lies from “human rights” hypocrites
• holding torchlight memorials
There’s a lot more to it, when you have a real and functional nationalist party, than just running for elections.
That is fine, if one’s real goal is to win office. But outside of proportional representation systems, seeking office is pretty much futile. So if one’s real goal is education and organizing, then political campaigning is merely a distraction. So why not focus all one’s energy into educational and organizing efforts, and determine the agenda ourselves, rather than let electoral politics determine it for us?
You’re not doing that. You’re writing 5,000-word Batman essays that no normal person wants to read.
Why not take all the money spent on purely political activities—voter registration drives, campaign travel, campaign literature—and channel it into education and organizing?
What organizing?
David Duke, for example, has been doing enormously important work with his writings, speeches, and videos. Most of that work would come to a stop if he were to make another futile and expensive run for office.
Which made a bigger impression on the public: his educational materials or his campaigns? The answer is obvious.
Intellectually, we need to draw a sharp, clear line between New Right metapolitics and all forms of nationalist party politics. We share the same broad aims, but we differ as to the best means of achieving them. We need to acknowledge these differences frankly, then divide our camp and pursue our common aims by the various paths that seem best to us.
I do not wish to spend time criticizing and attacking other sincere white advocates, competing for turf and followers or squabbling over dimes. In the end, the only valid argument for or against an approach is to look at its results. I want to win support by doing good work, not denigrating the work of others.
Yet you spend all your effort denigrating both the original right, which actually dared, unlike you, get involved in politics, and damn near won the whole thing… and then you also denigrate the fact finders who preserve their legacy by protecting what they actually did from jewish big liars.
You want people to credit you with real Nazi virtues while not holding you responsible for imaginary Nazi flaws. What a big stinking, steaming hypocrite you are. Who could trust you?
Even though one can draw a sharp intellectual line between New Right metapolitics and nationalist party politics, no wall separates us in the real world. The North American New Right is not a political party or a party-like intellectual sect. We are an informal network that can overlap and penetrate all social institutions, including parties. I maintain contacts with people all over the globe who are involved in various political parties. They know where I stand. Where we disagree, we agree to disagree.
Are you a movement, or not? You say you are, but your words then again show you’re not. Inconsistency has become a serious problem with you, Johnson. Brown Johnson’s Book & Essay Club is what you are. That’s fine. Or it would be fine if you admitted it. But you prefer to play games, with yourself and others.
Speaking personally, however, I wish that a wall could be erected in some cases, for if there are only six degrees of social separation between me and Barack Obama, there are far fewer degrees of separation between me and the next Anders Behring Breivik. And, for me, that is just too close for comfort. I do not want anything to do with gun-toting armies of one. The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.
Yeaaaah. You are going to take over culture. You and your ideas… and your porcelain gun. Mmhmm. We’ll see that you’re stuck in a lavender-scented rubber room, sir.
You see, I really believe that what I am doing is right and important.
Too right and too important to expose to the risk of grown men dressing up as Knights Templar or Stormtroopers and playing with real guns. I have nothing against guns or gun-owners as such. But the Old Right model attracts unstable, violence-prone people, which just makes our job harder.
Again: no one can make you look bad but you. And you’re more than qualified on that front.
But since I can’t build a movement—even a metapolitical movement—by being a hermit, the best I can do is draw clear intellectual lines of demarcation: again, the North American New Right is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.
Yeah, we get it: No fight. Just right.
Breivik is a complex case, because he emerged from the Counter-Jihad movement, a Jewish-dominated false opposition to the Islamic colonization of Europe. But we still share his basic concerns and his goal of Europe for Europeans, even though we reject his actions and much of his analytical framework.
Cynics have accused the New Left of being nothing but a dishonest marketing ploy. Of course, there is no point in trying to convince cynics, who know a priori that the truth is always more sordid than it seems. But the New Left actually delivered on its promises: Marxism without totalitarianism, without terror, without camps.
No, that’s not accurate. Accurate is that anyone who threatens the regime will be thrown in jail. What crime did Mahler and Stolz and Rudolf commit? There’s nothing at all soft, different or new about leftist tactics, they just don’t need to be as repressive as they once were because they’ve consolidated their control.
It is merely your self-interested pretension that the left changed its nature rather than its tactics, and that it renounces violence in favor or persuasion. It does no such thing. It uses violence wherever it needs to. You just won’t acknowledge it. Because it encourages your nostrum that real change can be accomplished by soft means alone. In your case, by writing essays.
Of course we all know that the present regime is a form of soft totalitarianism which is enacting the genocide of the white race in slow motion. But the point is that this regime was not imposed upon our people through a violent revolution. They accepted it because of the transformation of their consciousness. They can be saved the same way.
Garbage. Decades of agitprop, and our people still vote time after time to close the borders and against affirmative action. With their feet they vote to move to White areas, and toward the altar with someone of the same race. Their consciousness has hardly been transformed.
They simply see no option than to go along with most things because there’s no one leading the other way, and they only get one position no matter which authority they listen to. And men who might lead them are sitting on the sidelines kibitzing with essays while advising others to stay out of politics, even though they have a contemporary example right in front of their nose in Greece that getting involved is what actually works.
The next month Linder commented on his VNN Forum:
Johnson dogmatically and a priori rejects violence. He is single-handedly, with his collection of academics and other writes, going to create a sea change in culture that inevitably as a tsunami sweeps away existing mindsets and tiny villages and replaces them with new ones.
Johnson is a page fascist, but not a street fascist, hence not a real fascist. He is a WN, but functionally he’s a conservative. That’s what I’ve maintained. We will get into this, not just in relation to him, but in relation to the original NS and today’s Golden Dawn.