A passage from White Power
by George Lincoln Rockwell
Over the past twenty years, I have run the course from “Republican,” to “hard-shell Republican” to “anti-Communist” to “McCarthyite” to “Birch-type Conservative” to sneaky Nazi!—and finally to all out National Socialist—Hitlerite!
8th June 1942, at dinner
The role of coming generations—Extension of the Germanic idea—A new name for the Reich capital—Youth should lead youth—Influence of the National Socialist youth within the family—Propaganda—The role of the Press in national education.
During dinner photographs were passed round, showing the Reich Youth Leader in the company of Youth Group Leaders, male and female, from Norway, Denmark, Holland, etc., the Fuehrer expressed himself as follows: It is an excellent thing that Axmann has been at the front as a soldier. The loss of an arm in battle will undoubtedly enhance his prestige with the youths, not only of Germany, but also of the other countries. I am very pleased, too, to welcome Axmann’s efforts, and to see how he strives continuously to bind the youth of the German lands with ever closer bonds to National Socialism and to the German way of thought. For once youth has been won over to an idea, an action like that of yeast sets in. Youth effervesces and goes on working and working for an idea, regardless of anything that the older generation can do to stop them. Even in Denmark, the opposition of the older generations will not prevent the youth from adopting in ever-increasing numbers the German way of thought, for they feel they spring from the same racial origins.
Following the example of Bismarck, who never ceased to preach the pan-Germanic idea to the Bavarians, the Prussians, etc., we must systematically draw all the Germanic peoples of continental Europe into the German channel of thought. I really believe that by re-naming Berlin the capital of our Reich “Germania,” we would give very considerable impetus to the movement. The name Germania for the capital of the Reich in its new representative form would be very appropriate, for it would give to every member of the German community, however far away from the capital he may be, a feeling of unity and closer membership. There would be no technical difficulty about re-naming Berlin, as we can see from the Germanisation of Gdynia into Gotenhafen and the changing of the name of Lodz into Litzmannstadt.
In the same way as the press, the school also must be used as an instrument for the education of the people, and must therefore be organised and directed without any regard for private interests. The school alone, however, as the instrument for the education of youth, does not suffice, because it is too prone to give priority of interest to purely academic achievement. It is for this reason that I have formed the supplementary organisation of the Hitlerjugend and endowed it with the bold motto “Die Jugend von Jugend gefuehrt werden soll”—Youth must be led by Youth.
In the choice of leaders for the Hitler Youth and of teachers for the Department of Education, our first principle must be to ensure that these instructors of both kinds are chosen from men who will remain as an example to youth for the rest of their lives, exactly as the instructors in the gymnasia of Ancient Greece set the example of bodily and spiritual perfection to the youth submitted to their charge. It is between the ages of ten and seventeen, that youth exhibits both the greatest enthusiasm and the greatest idealism.
It is also during these years of adolescent development that a child’s sensibility is at its strongest. How many of our leading Party members were originally brought into the National Socialist movement by the influence of their own children! Again and again young people, filled with enthusiasm for National Socialism, have succeeded first in persuading their mother, and then, with her help, in winning over the father for the NSDAP.
Conversation then turned to questions of administration, the complexities of its organisation and the duplication of effort which not infrequently ensued. The Fuehrer said: It is only by means of the concentration of the whole machinery of press and propaganda in one single organisation that a unified direction of the press can be assured. And a unified press is a prerequisite, if the press is to enjoy the confidence of the people and thus also to become effective as an instrument of popular education.
How little this was understood in the circle of the so-called national press was brought home to me in 1920 in the course of an altercation with the Reverend Traub, the editor of Eiserne Blätter. When I told the reverend gentleman as bluntly as I could that a free press must give way to a unified and controlled press, because the former was nothing more nor less than a free forum for the dissemination of Jewish impertinences, he crumpled entirely. The mentality of the so-called Nationalists of the type of the Reverend Traub was very correctly assessed by Dietrich Eckart, when he declared that the Eiserne Blätter (Pages of Iron) should more properly be called “Blecherne Blätter” (Pages of Lead).
What an enormously important instrument for the education of public opinion the press could become was never understood by the so-called Nationalists. And yet, what other instrument is so well suited to the purpose? I myself put the press on the same footing as the Department of Education, and in both cases, I maintain, private interests must play no part whatsoever, either in their organisation or in the control of them.
The necessity of staying legal
“Revolution & legality”
Editorial by Dr. William L. Pierce
National Socialist World Journal
Winter 1968
Two classes of concepts which are fundamentally different in nature, yet often confused, are those having to do with doctrine and those concerned with tactics. The former are independent of changing circumstances and conditions; the latter are strongly dependent on these things. We make an extremely grave error when we treat a doctrinal point as if it were a tactical matter, but we also make a serious error when we assign to some tactical consideration the attributes of a point of doctrine.
The National Socialist movement has generally been considered to be an element of the “right wing,” albeit an extreme element. Indeed, we apparently share a number of things with other right-wing elements, such as anti-Marxism, a respect for tradition, and support for the forces of law and order, That last has meant, among other things, that we have constrained ourselves to the use of “legal” methods only in our struggle.
Now, whereas our anti-Marxism is implicit in our National Socialist doctrine, our self-restriction to legal methods is tactical in nature.1 Because the movement has, however, since 1923, insisted upon “legality” in its relationship with constituted authority, some may have fallen into the error of thinking that this insistence stems from doctrinal considerations about the sanctity of “law and order.” Under certain conditions this error can lead to disastrous consequences. Since the occurrence of these “certain conditions” in the foreseeable future is by no means a merely academic possibility, it may be worthwhile to examine this problem in detail.
In terms of the most fundamental National Socialist criterion, the question is: Is the support of the constituted authority and the maintenance of law and order in the best long-term interest of the race? And the self-evident answer is, that this depends upon the nature and the aims of the particular constituted authority in question. For while it is true that when a State is fulfilling its proper function as defender and champion of the racial interests of its people the aims of race and law and order become identical, those aims no longer coincide when the State strays from its proper role. In this respect the teachings of the Leader are quite clear:
The State is a means to an end. This end is the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually homogeneous living creatures. This preservation itself includes, firstly, subsistence as a race and thus permits the free development of all powers slumbering within that race… States that do not serve this purpose are mistakes, nay, monstrosities. The fact of their existence does not alter this any more than the success of a crew of buccaneers can justify piracy… We must make a sharp distinction between the State as a vessel and the race as its content. This vessel has a purpose only so long as it can preserve and protect the content; otherwise it is worthless.2
Strictly speaking, only a National socialist State can fully satisfy our criterion: any other State formation can only approximate the ideal role of the State as defender and champion of the racial interests of its people; and in this light the present day Western democracies can only be described as monstrosities.
If a State can be carried through a peaceful evolution toward its proper role, then this course should be followed, for we certainly do not seek a state of anarchy and chaos as an end in itself. There are always dangers inherent in such a situation: more than one revolution has gone astray during its violent phase, emerging from the conflict with an altogether different character than upon entering.
On the other hand, neither must peaceful revolution be sought as an end in itself. Where it does not provide a realistic and practical course of action, it must be abandoned without hesitation for other means.
Considering the present array of State formations with which we are faced, the question which naturally arises is this: is it conceivable that any of these degenerate and racially destructive entities can be smoothly transformed into a National Socialist State? Or must we think in terms of a total leveling of the present structures before we can hope to begin building a new structure on sound foundations? Whatever our answer, it must be based only upon an evaluation of the possibilities inherent in the various paths leading to our ultimate racial goals, and not upon any false conception of our obligations toward any presently existing State authority.
Again, the Leader has spelled this out for us:
State authority cannot exist as an end in itself, or every tyranny in this world would be sacred and untouchable. If, by the instrument of governmental authority, a people is being driven to its destruction, then rebellion is not only the right but the duty of every member of that people… In general, it must never be forgotten that the highest purpose of man’s existence is not the maintenance of a State, let alone of a government, but the preservation of its own kind. Let that be in danger of suppression or destruction, and the question of legality is but subordinate. Then, though the methods of the ruling power be a thousand times “legal,” the self-preservation of the oppressed is always the noblest justification for a struggle using any and every weapon.3
Why, then, the insistence up till now on “legality” in our struggle? The answer is that we are faced with the same difficulty today that confronted the Movement forty-five years ago in Germany: the enemy, with the repressive powers of the State at his disposal, is far stronger physically than we. In any shooting match with the State authority, we are bound to lose decisively, just as we lost on November 9, 1923.
The fact that the anarchist elements among the Jews are able to use illegal means with relative impunity in their assault upon “the Establishment” should not mislead us into thinking that the same tactics will work for us. In the first place, we do not have the allies in the Establishment that they have. We cannot provoke large-scale violence and disorder and receive a gentle slap on the wrist in reprisal, as they can. In the second place, we and they have entirely different aims. Since their purpose is, above all, to destroy the existing order of things, they have a much greater freedom of action than we have; they can carry out their purpose with a much looser organizational structure than we can ours, and thus they are relatively less susceptible to counterattack.
We are “legal” now because we dare not be otherwise; we are yet too weak to defy the State authority successfully. At the same time, as long as we are weak and ineffective the State feels no real threat from us, and, therefore, no pressing need to destroy us. But our relationship to the State is changing, and we are entering a new and critical phase of our development—one in which we are becoming too strong for the State to ignore, yet not strong enough to defend ourselves from its attacks. These attacks will progress from quasi-legal harassment, intimidation of our members and supporters, and interference with our mail to illegal arrests and criminal charges based on falsified evidence, the withdrawal of police protection, and—eventually—outlawry through special legislation. Whenever in the course of these developments we allow ourselves to be provoked into illegal counteraction, we provide the State with the powerful weapon of self-justification.
Yet, the conflict seems inevitable, for before our struggle is over each and every criminal comprising the System will have a pretty good idea just what fate awaits him at our hands. Very few are likely to deceive themselves into believing that we are “just another Party,” with which they can reach an “understanding” which will leave the System largely intact. They will almost certainly realize that a triumphant National Socialism will mean not only a permanent end to their whole way of life, but an end to life itself for many of them. This knowledge will not incline them to yield gracefully to us.
Despite what lies ahead, however, we must strenuously avoid yielding to the temptation to retaliate prematurely to the provocations that beset us. When we do take the very grave step of illegal action, it must only be because the further progress of the Movement demands it—not because we can no longer repress the urge to satisfy our thirst for vengeance or because irresponsible elements in the Movement have not been kept under close enough rein.
Thus, the key to success in the struggle ahead is self-discipline. While it is the time to be “legal” we must stolidly endure whatever the State sees fit to inflict upon us. And when it is time to revolt, we must be prepared to unleash all the furies of hell on the State until it yields.
W.L.P.
____________________________
5th July 1942, midday
The ten or fifteen thousand professional loafers who were lounging about Germany at the time of our assumption of power, and who showed no inclination to take a regular job when once German industry had started to function again, have been put into concentration camps. For it is ridiculous to try to deal by ordinary methods with muck of this kind. The fear of being put into a concentration camp has had a most salutary effect, and it greatly facilitated the gearing up of the gigantic industrial activity which our rearmament programme demanded.
That Germany has succeeded in solving this problem, as it has solved many others, is due in no small measure to the fact that the State has progressively assumed more and more control. Only in this way was it possible to defeat private interests and carry national interests triumphantly to their goal.
After the war, equally, we must not let control of the economy of the country slip from our hands. As most people are egotists at heart, any efficient functioning of a national economy is not possible without State direction and control. The Venetian Republic affords an excellent example of how successful a State directed economy can be. For five hundred years the price of bread in Venice never varied, and it was left to the Jews with their predatory motto of Free Trade to wreck this stability.
6th July 1942, at dinner
In the course of our many electoral tours my companions and I have got to know and to love the Reich from Berlin to its uttermost corners. As for the most part I was invited to take my meals en famille, I also got to know intimately Germans all over Germany.
There I used to meet whole families, in which the father would be working in our political section, the mother was a member of the Women’s Association, one brother was in the SS, the other in the Hitler Youth, and the daughter was in the German Girls’ League. And so when we all meet once a year at the Party Rally at Nuremberg, it always gives me the impression of being just one huge family gathering.
The Occidental Observer (TOO) has been publishing several articles on white pathology this week (this one on Sweden, only the latest). I feel that neither the editor of TOO nor the commenters have a grasp of what Secular Christianity is. For example, in the linked article Kevin MacDonald wrote:
It is vitally important that we come to grips with this suicidal phenomenon which is more common in Northern Europeans. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Sweden is the most secular country in the world, and its elites are hostile to Christianity and more than happy to donate Christian churches to the non-Christian newcomers, or destroying them to make housing for them.
Jack Frost commented:
“It has nothing to do with Christianity.”
I couldn’t disagree more. The striving after moral perfection you’re talking about is nothing if not Christian, as are the underlying ideals of charity and universal brotherhood. It’s inconceivable that any Jewish propaganda in that direction would have any appeal in the West if it hadn’t been so deeply Christian for so long. Christianity is where the West’s morality comes from, not propaganda. The sort of madness described above was unknown in whites of pre-Christian times.
MacDonald responded:
As an evolutionist, that is difficult to accept. You have to think that people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics. Why keep that one and not, say, the doctrine of original sin or the idea of Hell? Why don’t we see Middle Eastern Christian groups with aggressively universalist ethics? Why has Christianity been compatible with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. in some times and places and with elite oppression during so much of Western history?
Besides my Tuesday entry where I quoted him I do not know well Frost’s point of view. Is he blaming Christianity for all our problems? I would disagree with such reductionism. In one of the recent TOO threads I quoted the formula that appears in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour: individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) plus egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) plus the empowerment of Jewry since the times of Napoleon has created a lethal brew for the white peoples. In other words: I don’t believe in a single cause of western decline, but in several etiological ingredients.
MacDonald does not believe that Christianity is a root cause of the problem. The questions he raises above can be explained if we introduce the notion of what in The Fair Race we call “Secular Christianity.”
Why keep that one and not, say, the doctrine of original sin or the idea of Hell?
Secular Christians—western atheists, agnostics or nihilists who subscribe liberalism—have not abandoned the idea of sin, only sublimated it. Post-Christian whites are supposed to be the “bad guys” of world history.
Regarding the idea of hell, this has been the most psychotic idea of all Western history. In my opinion, the doctrine of eternal damnation proves that whites were psychotic throughout Christendom. I have written extensively about this extremely disturbing doctrine in Spanish and only a little in English.
Suffice it to say that it was to be expected that when whites abandoned the idea of eternal torture that they allegedly deserved according to the monstrous god they used to worship, something would happen. The extreme self-harming violence of such idea had to find an outlet, an ogre of the superego so to speak: exactly what we may well be witnessing with these pious efforts to deliver the European soil to the downtrodden à la The Camp of the Saints.
Why don’t we see Middle Eastern Christian groups with aggressively universalist ethics?
Good question professor MacDonald. Here we can see that my “brew” metaphor is better than any of the monocausal explanations. Among whites universalism is hard wired since prehistory, which explains why sand niggers who have embraced Christianity are immune to it.
Why has Christianity been compatible with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. in some times and places and with elite oppression during so much of Western history?
And here we have the other major factor, capitalism, in action. The use of slaves was obviously motivated by economic interests. In the past greed trumped the compassionate message of the gospel. Let me put it in this way: in Yang times capitalism trumps Christian axiology, whereas in yin times like ours altruistic axiology trumps economic interests.
In one of the recent TOO threads I quoted the Swede from whom I learnt the term “Secular Christianity.” I tried to explain the TOO commentariat that Christianity is not only dogmatics, but axiology (moral grammar, ultimate ethics) as well. From this viewpoint modern liberals, however rabid anti-Christian may seem, have not really broken away from their grandparents’ religion.
The Swedes who have been the subject of a couple of recent articles at TOO are a good example. What’s the most classic Swedish film that comes to mind? Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal, which depicts a quixotic knight (played by Max von Sydow, pic below) and his pragmatic squire who return to Sweden after fighting in the Crusades. Saving the Holy Land from the infidels (a Yang goal) may no longer be fashionable, but fulfilling the promises of the Sermon of the Mount (a yin goal), which contains the central tenets of Christian discipleship, has become mandatory, especially the Beatitudes. As a TOO commenter put it, “The idea that deluded, race denying, libtard Swedes think that they are creating a humanitarian superpower by genetically obliterating themselves, is one of the most perverse forms of masochistic megalomania that I have ever heard of.” But this is only the modern equivalent of the quixotic, and therefore disastrous, Children’s Crusade of 1212 (which recent scholarship has revealed was conducted not exactly by children but by quixotic commoners).
Presently whites are as religious Don Quixotes as they have always been, especially the pure Nordid atheists and secular humanists who claim to hate Christianity. But with honorable exceptions, like Alex Linder and company, MacDonald and most white nationalists ignore it.
I like to think of Christianity / Secular Christianity as a circle. Once you dismiss half of it, the dogma, the remaining axiological half metastasizes and tries to grow in the form of a circle again; this time without any need of gospel fictions. With due time dogmatics is thoroughly dismissed and the area of Secular Christianity becomes a full circle again. Every neo-Christian wants to be a quixotic knight in one way or another. The Swede wrote:
Our progressivist paradigm is based on Christian ethics. The Left is all about Christian ethics. What the left wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing and fulfilling it: what I call “The Finish of the West.” The current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization.
It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes. So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, [presently] it causes the population explosion in the world.
Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet.
But the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only to us but also to them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.
This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity. The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form.
And not only the population explosion thanks to Western aid. Secular Christianity is behind the acceptance of those masses of non-white immigrants into our soils. Frost is right above that it is inconceivable that any Jewish propaganda in that direction would have any appeal in the West if it hadn’t been so deeply Christian for so long (my emphasis). Furthermore, the Swede claims, in my opinion accurately, that since in neo-Christianity there is no sacrificial Christ, we ourselves, the still guilty post-Christians, must do the sacrifice—what is happening in Sweden!
In the article about “Schweitzer’s niglets” which expands the above quote you will also surmise a possible reply to one of MacDonald’s critical statements of Frost’s views:
You have to think that people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics.
Well, quixotic Albert Schweitzer exemplifies why once you lose the credibility in the gospels, Christian axiology is not only maintained but reinforced.
Apparently the concept of a witches’ brew containing several ingredients is too strong food for thought to be digested even by the best minds in white nationalism. I gave up trying to convey my complex ideas to the commenters of those TOO threads, and even the site admin removed a couple of my posts.
However, since MacDonald is still taking issue with Frost in today’s comments section, I’d love if someone posts a link to this article in that thread.
by William Pierce
April 20 of this year [this was a 1989 National Vanguard article] is the 100th anniversary of the birth of the greatest man of our era—a man who dared more and achieved more, who set his aim higher and climbed higher, who felt more deeply and stirred the souls of those around him more mightily, who was more closely attuned to the Life Force which permeates our cosmos and gives it meaning and purpose, and did more to serve that Life Force, than any other man of our times.
And yet he is the most reviled and hated man of our times. Only a few tens of thousands of men and women, in scattered groups around the world, will celebrate his birthday with love and reverence on April 20, while all of the scribblers and commentators of the controlled news media, the controlled politicians, and the controlled churchmen will pour out their hatred and venom and lies against him, and those lies will be believed by hundreds of millions.
What is the measure of greatness in a man?
Only the most vulgar and doctrinaire democrat would seriously equate greatness with popularity—although in any polling of average citizens on their choice for the greatest man of the century there are certain to be substantial numbers of votes for Elvis Presley, John Kennedy, Billy Graham, Michael Jackson, and various other high-visibility lightweights: charismatic entertainers on the stage of politics, rock concerts, spectator sports, or what have you.
More serious citizens would pass by the lightweights and choose men who have changed the world in some way. We would hear choices like Franklin Roosevelt (“he saved the world from fascism”), Albert Einstein (“he taught us about the nature of our universe”), and Martin Luther King (“he helped us achieve racial justice”), depending upon whether one’s personal inclinations lay more in the direction of politics, science, or racial self-abasement, respectively.
But if the poll asked instead for the most evil man of the century, or the most hated man, or the man having the most negative influence, at least three-quarters of the blue-collar and the white-collar pollees alike would name one man: Adolf Hitler. This, however, would be merely a reflection of the role assigned to him by the controlled mass media, rather than a truly informed and reasoned choice.
All of this raises several very interesting issues. There is, for example, the question of how we came to the preposterous state of affairs prevailing today, wherein we place the destiny of our nation, our planet, and our race in the hands of a mass of voters whose powers of judgment are manifested in such things as the type of television entertainment their preferences have pushed into prime time and the type of men they have elected to public office. And there is the equally weighty question of how, knowing the ease with which this mass is misled, we permitted virtually all of the media of mass information and entertainment to fall into the hands of a race whose interests are so diametrically opposed to our own.
Perhaps even more pertinent to a consideration of human greatness, however, is the question of how our system of values came to be turned on its head, so that Franklin Roosevelt is regarded as a hero and Adolf Hitler as a villain, not only by the stolid and stunned masses, but also by a majority of the supposedly “educated” elite, many of whom pride themselves on their intellectual independence.
Whether we judge the greatness of a man by his intrinsic qualities of character and soul or by his accomplishments, Adolf Hitler had greatness of a very high order—if we use the standards which have been traditional in our race.
We cannot, of course, make comparisons with all the “mute, inglorious Miltons” whose lack of notable accomplishment has made them anonymous, despite the sterling inner qualities they may have possessed. But when Hitler’s character is held up beside those of other 20th-century political leaders, he stands as a giant among pygmies.
At the prosaic level, we can note his ascetic personal habits, compared with Winston Churchill’s habitual drunkenness and notorious self-indulgence; or his personal loyalty to those who had been his comrades in the days of political struggle, compared with Joseph Stalin’s habit of murdering his former comrades by the dozen, as potential rivals, as soon as he no longer needed their services; or his direct, frank, and straightforward manner, compared to the cunning deviousness which was Franklin Roosevelt’s trademark.
At the spiritual level, the inner differences between Hitler and his contemporaries are even more striking. Hitler was a man with a mission, from the beginning. The testimony of his closest associates, from his boyhood days to the end of his life, agrees with the observations of more distant and impartial observers: Hitler had a mystical sense of destiny, a sense of having been singled out and called by a higher power to devote his life to the service of his race.
His childhood companion August Kubizek has related extraordinary evidence of this when Hitler was only 16 years old (August Kubizek, Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund [Graz, 1953], pp. 127–35). Twenty years later, while he was in prison after an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the government, Hitler himself wrote of his motivation in a way which suggested the range of his vision:
What we must fight for is the security of the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the maintenance of the purity of our blood… so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted them by the Creator of the universe.
Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility. Then no theory will stiffen into a dead doctrine, since it is life alone that all things must serve…
The National Socialist philosophy finds the importance of mankind in its basic racial elements. In the state it sees on principle a means to an end and construes that end as the preservation of the racial existence of man…
And so the National Socialist philosophy of life corresponds to the innermost will of Nature, since it restores that free play of forces which must lead to a continuous mutual higher breeding, until finally the best of humanity, having achieved possession of this earth, will have a free play for activity in domains which will lie partly above it and partly outside it.
We all sense that in the distant future humanity must be faced by problems which only a highest race, become master people and supported by the means and possibilities of an entire globe, will be equipped to overcome…
Thus, the highest purpose of a National Socialist state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which not only assures the preservation of this nationality, but by the development of its spiritual and ideal abilities leads it to the highest freedom…
A National Socialist state must begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape…
It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children…
The National Socialist state must make certain that by a suitable education of youth it will someday obtain a race ripe for the last and greatest decisions on this earth…
Anyone who wants to cure this era, which is inwardly sick and rotten, must first summon the courage to make clear the causes of this disease. And this should be the concern of the National Socialist movement: pushing aside all narrowmindedness, to gather and to organize from the ranks of our nation those forces capable of becoming the vanguard fighters for a new philosophy of life…
We are not simple enough to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and to strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he can abandon a system of justice because mistakes creep into it, or any more than medicine is discarded because there always will be sickness in spite of it.
We National Socialists know that with this conception we stand as revolutionaries in the world of today and are branded as such. But our thoughts and actions must in no way be determined by the approval or disapproval of our time, but by the binding obligation to a truth which we have recognized. (Mein Kampf)
Hitler’s opponents, Churchill and Roosevelt, were party politicians, with the minds and souls of party politicians. Great, impersonal goals, just as truth, meant nothing at all to them. The only thing that counted was the approval or disapproval of their times: the outcome of the next election, a good press claque, votes. Only Stalin shared in any way Hitler’s disdain for approval; only Stalin was motivated to any degree by an impersonal idea. But the idea that Stalin served was the alien, destructive idea of Jewish Marxism. And while Hitler served the Life Force with the instincts of a seer, Stalin served Marxism with the instincts of a bureaucrat and a butcher. A comparison of careers leads us to a similar ranking of greatness of soul. Churchill and Roosevelt were born into the political establishment. They fed at the public trough for years, in one office after another, grabbing greedily at opportunities for a bigger serving of swill. But it was circumstance, not their own efforts, which thrust them onto the stage of world history.
Stalin hacked out his own niche in history to a much greater extent than his western allies, and he was an incomparably stronger man than either of them. He was tough, ruthless, infinitely cunning, and utterly determined to prevail, no matter what the obstacles. Even so, his struggle for prominence and power was entirely within the Bolshevik party and its predecessors. He was the consummate bureaucratic infighter, not the innovator or the lone pioneer.
Only Adolf Hitler started literally from nothing and through the exercise of a superhuman will created the physical basis for the realization of his vision. In 1918, recovering in a veterans’ hospital from a British poison-gas attack, he made the decision to enter politics in order to serve that vision. He was a 29-year-old invalid, with no money, no family, no friends or connections, no university education, and no experience. Liberals, Jews, and communists ruled his country, making him and all those to whom he might appeal for support outsiders.
Five and one-half years later he was sentenced to five years in prison for his political activity, and his enemies thought that was the end of him and his movement. But less than nine years after being sentenced he was Chancellor of Germany, with the strongest and most progressive nation in Europe at his command. He had built the National Socialist movement and led it to victory over the organized opposition of the entire Establishment: conservatives, liberals, communists, Jews, and Christians.
He then transformed Germany, lifting it out of its economic depression (while Americans, under Roosevelt, continued to line up at the soup kitchens), restoring its spirit (and much of the territory which had been taken from it by the victors of the First World War), stimulating its artistic and scientific creativity, and winning the admiration (or, in some cases, the envy and hatred) of other nations. It was an achievement hardly paralleled in the history of the world. Even those who do not understand the real significance of his creation must concede that.
And what was the real significance of Hitler’s work? One of his most earnest admirers in India, Savitri Devi, has given us a poetic answer to that question. She wrote:
In its essence, the National Socialist idea exceeds not only Germany and our times, but the Aryan race and mankind itself and any epoch… it ultimately expresses that mysterious and unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates: the impersonal wisdom of the primeval forest and of the ocean depth and of the spheres in the dark fields of space; and… it is Adolf Hitler’s glory not merely to have gone back to that divine wisdom—stigmatizing man’s silly infatuation for “intellect,” his childish pride in “progress,” and his criminal attempt to enslave Nature—but to have made it the basis of a practical regeneration policy of worldwide scope, precisely now, in our overcrowded, overcivilized, and technically overevolved world, at the very end of the dark age” (Savitri Devi, The Lightning and the Sun [National Socialist World No. 1, p. 61]).
More prosaically, Hitler’s work, in contrast to that of his contemporaries, was above politics, above economics, above nationalism. He had mobilized a powerful, modern state and placed it at the service of our race, so that our race might become fit to serve as an agent of the Life Force.
Perceptive and idealistic young men from every nation in Europe—and from many nations outside Europe as well—recognized this significance, and they flocked to serve him and to fight for his cause, even at the cost of censure and ostracism from their more parochial and narrowminded countrymen. There was never before an elite fighting force to match the SS, which by the end of the Second World War had more non-Germans than Germans in it.
The war, of course, is counted as Hitler’s great failure, even as the proof of his lack of greatness, by his detractors. It merely proves that he was a man, not a god, even if a divine will worked through him, and that he could not perform miracles. He could not defend himself forever, with the governments of nearly the whole world allied in a total war to pull him down and destroy his creation, so that they and the interests they served could return to “business as usual.” Even so, he gave a far better account of himself than any of his adversaries.
And what will count in the long run in determining Adolf Hitler’s stature is not whether he lost or won the war, but whether it was he or his adversaries who were on the side of the Life Force, whether it was he or they who served the cause of Truth and human progress. We only have to look around us today to know it was not they.
Keyword: Christian Identity (CI)
“I think the men’s movement will eventually go completely Nazi. Just a matter of time” wrote Andrew Anglin recently. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that, like Harold Covington who admits women in his inner party—a feminist!—, Anglin and the commenters at The Daily Stormer are phony nazis as well. This Easter Anglin posted this Frankenstein entry trying to mix the unmixable, which I quote below:
Today is the holiest day on the Christian calendar, and it is important to remember why.
What is important to remember this Easter is that the Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem, and that Frankensteinian CI neonazis have fallen into monocausalism precisely because they are unwilling to see what the real nazis saw.
Christ was an example, both in deed and in metaphor. The metaphor of the crucifixion and resurrection is the metaphor for all of life. Life is suffering, but it is through that suffering that we become something more. We must die in order to be born again. This is where the meaning is. In the fight. Victory is inevitable and absolute. But it is the struggle, this is where the transformation takes place.
Finally it’s all too clear to me why many white nationalists don’t treasure Pierce’s Who We Are. If Moses replaced Hermann (Arminius) and Christ replaced Vercingetorix in the white psyche, it’s precisely because “the gradual replacement of White tradition, legend, and imagery by that of the Jews. Instead of specifically Celtic or German or Slavic heroes, the Church’s saints, many of them Levantines, were held up to the young for emulation; instead of the feats of Hermann or Vercingetorix, children were taught of the doings of Moses and David.” Anglin and all people in CI are simply incapable to see the level of alienation that resulted from bringing into our Aryan citadel a Trojan horse: none other than the god of the Jews! Once I finish quoting from Hitler’s table talks by the end of the year, I will be translating more articles of Manu Rodríguez, who explains beautifully why Zeus must replace Yahweh in order to save the race.
Jesus fought the Jew, and when it seemed as though the Jew had won, killing him, he rose from the grave. So too are we dead, and so too shall we rise from the grave. Just so, each of us as individuals must suffer in order to truly become what we are meant to be.
With these nazis who needs the Jews? A couple of days ago I told a CI commenter at The Daily Stormer that throughout the Old Testament the Hebrews teach ethno-centricity for the Hebrew people, but in the New Testament the Jew Paul teaches universalism for us gentiles! I confess I’m so upset with this nonsense in Murka’s neonazi blogosphere that I will skip Hitler’s table talk this day and post instead something about Easter; not sure if I’ll take the trouble to type an in-depth article on the Resurrection. What is sure is that I’ll now remove The Daily Stormer from my blogroll list.
When we lost WWII, we died. We are now in Hell. But the dawn is about to break, and we shall rise from the grave, living flesh, moving toward Heaven. Hail Victory.
What Anglin and the CI Christians at The Daily Stormer ignore is that it was precisely because of Christianity that we lost World War Two! Read Tom Sunic’s “A war crime of the Bible” in his book Homo Americanus.
Why I claim that Christianity is incompatible with National Socialism and that any attempt to merge the two is like Shelley’s novel about a student creating a grotesque but sentient creature? Simple. Just see what Hitler and Himmler said about our parents’ religion here and here. The first links to a table talk that should be read instead of the missing “Uncle Adolf’s table talk” entry today.
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.
Night of 29th-30th November 1944
Jesus and Saint Paul—Christianity, a Jewish manoeuvre—Christianity and Communism—National Socialism, the implacable enemy of everything Jewish.
Jesus was most certainly not a Jew. The Jews would never have handed one of their own people to the Roman courts; they would have condemned him themselves. It is quite probable that a large number of the descendants of the Roman legionaries, mostly Gauls, were living in Galilee, and Jesus was probably one of them. His mother may well have been a Jewess.
Jesus fought against the materialism of his age, and, therefore, against the Jews.
Paul of Tarsus, who was originally one of the most stubborn enemies of the Christians, suddenly realised the immense possibilities of using, intelligently and for other ends, an idea which was exercising such great powers of fascination. He realised that the judicious exploitation of this idea among non-Jews would give him far greater power in the world than would the promise of material profit to the Jews themselves. It was then that the future St. Paul distorted with diabolical cunning the Christian idea. Out of this idea, which was a declaration of war on the golden calf, on the egotism and the materialism of the Jews, he created a rallying point for slaves of all kinds against the elite, the masters and those in dominant authority.
The religion fabricated by Paul of Tarsus, which was later called Christianity, is nothing but the Communism of today.
Bormann intervened. Jewish methods, he said, have never varied in their essentials. Everywhere they have stirred up the plebs against the ruling classes. Everywhere they have fostered discontent against the established power. For these are the seeds which produce the crop they hope later to gather.
Everywhere they fan the flames of hatred between peoples of the same blood. It is they who invented class-warfare, and the repudiation of this theory must therefore always be an anti-Jewish measure. In the same way, any doctrine which is anti-Communist, any doctrine which is anti-Christian must, ipso facto, be anti-Jewish as well.
The National Socialist doctrine is therefore anti-Jewish in excelsis, for it is both anti-Communist and anti-Christian. National Socialism is solid to the core, and the whole of its strength is concentrated against the Jews, even in matters which appear to have a purely social aspect and are designed for the furtherance of the social amenities of our own people.
The Fuehrer concluded: Burgdorff has just given me a paper which deals with the relationship between Communism and Christianity. It is comforting to see how, even in these days, the fatal relationship between the two is daily becoming clearer to the human intelligence.
_____________________________
Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.
