Counter-Currents
1,841 words
French translation here
Recently I re-read William Pierce’s classic 1971 essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win.” Like Pierce, if forced to choose between liberals and conservatives, I would side with conservatives. Conservatives have the indispensable political realism necessary for the preservation of any civilization. Liberalism, I will grant, does attract the best brains, blood, and spirit of our race. But though liberal idealism and imagination may adorn the heights of our civilization, they are undermining its foundations.
If in the next national election, everybody who voted Republican dropped dead in the voting booth, the country would be finished. You can’t have a functioning society consisting of bureaucrats, academics, welfare parasites, Jews, coloreds, feminists, fruit juice drinkers, and assorted busybodies. But if every Democratic voter dropped dead, my own family would be more than decimated, but society would go on. It would definitely be more orderly and more prosperous, although it would also be drab and hideously uptight.
Aside from politics, in which I completely reject egalitarianism and multiculturalism, I am pretty much a liberal. But one cannot deny that White Nationalism today is a phenomenon of the right. If White Nationalism is to triumph, it will have to become the common sense of the whole political spectrum. But for the time being, we are rightists, and we have to make the best of it.
But although we are rightists, we are not conservatives. Conservatives share some of our values, but they don’t share all of them, and they certainly don’t share our goals. In fact, it is hard to speak of conservatives as goal-oriented at all. Conservatives are backwards-looking or fixated on legalism, procedure, and rights, but they do not have an image of a perfected society that is the proper goal of political activity. White Nationalists, like leftists, do have such a vision.
Conservative goals, such as they are, are confined to piecemeal resistance to the implementation of the grand designs of the left. As often as not, conservatives are just trying to hold on to the leftist programs of the past.
William F. Buckley’s description of conservatism as “Standing athwart the tracks of history yelling stop” pretty much captures this mentality, as unseemly as it is for a serious-minded individual. We White Nationalists, however, want to be in the engine of history, steering it toward our goal, and cheerfully pouring on the steam when the Buckleys of the world try to get in our way.
The core of Pierce’s argument is that conservatives can’t win because they aren’t really trying. The left play for keeps. They have an overriding goal. They have a world to win. Conservatives are just trying to hold on to the 1950s or the 1980s. Conservatives may fight ferociously from time to time, but they are always playing defense. They think the election of a Nixon or a Reagan is a great victory, then lapse into complacency, only to awaken a few years later to find that the left has been on the march the whole time.
Other things being equal, the side that fights to win will defeat the side that fights for a draw. Fortune favors the bold, those who launch offenses, not those who merely play defense.
Conservatives also make a virtual cult out of being good sports, graceful losers, and ready compromisers.
Well, conservatives STILL can’t win. But neither can they learn, so they continue to promote their folly to new generations. Recently, two White Nationalist publications that once showed real promise have been lost to conservatism: Occidental Dissent and The Occidental Quarterly, which I edited for two and a half years, along with its sister publication, TOQ Online, which I created and edited for a year. I have already dealt with Occidental Dissent in “White Nationalism and the Political ‘Mainstream.’” Here I wish to deal with TOQ.
On November 6, 2010, John Gardner (“Yggdrasil”), the new publisher of TOQ, published “Why The Occidental Quarterly Exists” in which he explains the aims of TOQ under his watch. This article contains sound advice to whites to become as independent as possible from the consumerist system and its values and to create mutual aid networks.
But when it comes to the political system, Gardner is still very much a conservative, a Republican even. He thinks that White Nationalists—a tiny, voiceless, despised, poorly funded, and poorly led movement—should aim at lobbying and “conditioning” Republicans to represent white interests. Gardner actually thinks that whites can vote and lobby and game ourselves out of this mess, as if our people have not been slated for slow and systematic genocide but are merely having a run of bad luck at the polls.
I think it is too early for White Nationalists to get involved in electoral politics and lobbying. We need to become a much bigger, richer, and more politically threatening group before we can make a difference in that realm. (And if we become powerful enough, we can dispense with electoral politics altogether.) But for any of that to happen, we need to invest our time, money, brains, and talent in community building and outreach. We need to win people over to our way of thinking, by packaging and delivering our message to every white group through every medium available. We need to build up our community so it has something more to offer prospective converts than ignominy and the company of the insane.
The John Gardner I knew was a race-wise, Jew-wise White Nationalist who believed in the goal of a white ethnostate. The Occidental Quarterly I knew was founded to be explicitly white and to deal explicitly with the Jewish question. But you would never know that from Gardner’s TOQ 2.0 agenda. The most he says about race is that white Americans are being demonized and discriminated against because of our “skin color.” (Which is the language of biological race deniers and minimizers.) And as for the Jewish question, all we get is this:
Effective political motivation demands an identifiable “them.”
Our competing racial groups have an identifiable “them” in their stereotype of the evil and undeserving White man.
We need our own identifiable “them” which is, of course, those who benefit from the current repression of Whites under the regime of “multiculturalism.”
Then the trick is to make the “them” apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents.
We should not name “them” explicitly. Rather, we advance policies that directly thwart the extractions and benefits “they” get from “us,” thus generating the kind of policy-oriented anger that will motivate and unify “us.”
If this is taken seriously as TOQ policy, then every back issue of the journal will have to be pulped and reprinted, with references to Jews replaced by euphemisms like “liberals” and “cultural Marxists.” Furthermore, Kevin MacDonald now seems like an odd choice for Editor. And in the end, it will never work, because the SPLC will always be around to remind people of the truth about White Nationalists who scuttle crabwise toward the mainstream, begin speaking in riddles and euphemisms, and try to reinvent themselves as conservatives.
We few who know the most important truth in the world—that organized Jewry (not “liberals,” not “cultural Marxists”) have set the white race (not “conservatives,” not “Christians,” not “Western Civilization”) on the path to extinction—have an absolute duty to get this message out and wake our people up. Because if we don’t do it, nobody else will. Those who know the truth but can’t shout it from the rooftops have the duty to support those who can spread the word.
Gardner’s claim that “the trick is to make the ‘them’ apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents” is just a version of the old idea that we can “sneak up on the Jews” and catch them napping. But the enemy has millions of lidless, unsleeping eyes. And the idea that the enemy is not already inflamed and motivated and working against us at 99% capacity is laughable.
Gardner’s “trick” is not to name “them” but to support policies that negatively impact the interests of the enemy, so they rise from their slumbers and attack us, which will then motivate us to fight back.
Where to start?
(1) Aren’t the Jews attacking us enough already? And if decades of Jewish attacks have not motivated whites to unite and fight back, then why does Gardner think that ratcheting up the Jewish pressure will produce a different result this time?
Our people have suffered enough. The role of White Nationalists should be to explain who has been attacking us, and why, and how to fight back. That is the leadership our race needs.
(2) When and how are White Nationalists going to gain enough power to credibly threaten Jewish interests? How, exactly, is White Nationalism going to grow without first talking about race or Jewish power? If we don’t say anything to set us apart from conservatives, if we don’t act any more honest than system politicians, then why would we expect any growth? Gardner’s strategy for gaining political power begins: First, gain sufficient power to threaten the interests of the enemy. It doesn’t work that way.
(3) It is a tried and true method of political agitation to present a moderate petition to an arrogant power and hope that it is denied. There is nothing wrong with using this technique from time to time, when it is appropriate. But to depend on this technique alone—because one has adopted a policy of never speaking the enemy’s name—is an abdication of leadership. White Nationalists should be the primary educators and agitators of our people. Again, if we don’t argue our case, nobody else will.
(4) What exactly is the advantage to our people of being kept in the dark about our real enemies? The mainstream right has been doing that for decades, and what has that gotten us? Richard Nixon knew the score, but he spoke the truth only in private. In public, he made a foreign-born Jew Secretary of State and created Affirmative Action. The enemy operates under no such self-imposed handicaps.
(5) Gardner’s strategy is obviously based on the experience of the Tea Party, a piously color-blind, universalistic movement promoting fiscal conservatism and constitutional government which was nevertheless viciously attacked as “racist” by the left. These attacks have prompted ever-angrier denials of “racism” but not much more. Perhaps White Nationalists can reap some benefits from this polarization, but it is not a phenomenon that we need to imitate or encourage. It is doing quite well without us. Furthermore, leftist attacks on the Tea Party might move some people in our direction, but we will not move them any further unless we stay true to our own message rather than blending in with conservatives.
Pierce was right. Conservatism can’t win. It doesn’t really conserve anything. It is so politically inept and hapless that it seems almost designed to lose. If doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result is a definition of insanity, it is also a good definition of conservatism.
49 comments
Nice essay.
Here you highlight the importance of the correct message. And it is essentially important. But the character of the messenger might be more important.
Individually, I’ve refined my understanding, for years. In a careful, organized, moderated conversation, where logic and truth were given time and space to unfold, I’d win.
But whether people listen to you has largely to do with you. rather than what you say. The dynamics of that issue are so varied, so personal and situational, that it almost defies any comment or explanation.
But the basics are clear enough. We must be real men–“men with chests,” as an editor of mine once put it, men with real virility. In our daily lives we must practice and experience making fewer apologies, effacing ourselves less and admitting to less shame, or none.
It often occurs as a matter of handling bullies and their threats–physical threats, yes, but more importantly moral and personal threats, to your standing, confidence, and charisma. If you lack a way to negotiate these challenges in your local, individual life–if you lack admirers and listeners–people won’t suddenly stand at attention because you happen to be right, for example, about the Jews.
All that being right proves is that we understand the reasons for our decay and decline. Being in decay and in decline is unattractive. Our answer, in the end, will not be essentially verbal. It will occur in the flesh, and if you are to contribute you must work to embody it. It is one thing to say that the White man exists; it is another thing to exist, to physically stand and move and gesture, to look into the eye of deniers and attackers who would shriek and intimidate you out of being. When attacked, do you retain your character, dignity, composure, savoir faire, purpose, and self-possession? You can’t learn if you never get challenged.
Every self-appointed guru has some script or program or checklist to hand out. All I can tell you is that I cultivate physical virility, lifting and training in jiu jitsu, and I challenge people when it is called for. (There truly is a degree to which leben ist kampf, and on that basis you might say that, if you aren’t upsetting people, challenging them and facing challenges, you’re doing something wrong.) But I also don’t physically impose–I’m not looking for a fight. I model myself to be simply more interesting, more attractive, more alive. People must want to be led by you. Reflect on the qualities that originally made kings–it wasn’t simply individual combative mastery or intellectual supremacy. The protrait of leaders is not so reducible, yet not so mysterious either.
Eventually our survival has to come off the pages of well-written webzines and take on a certain tribal, personal dynamic. The people make the movement and not the reverse. Know through experience what you are. Be a credit to your own effort. If I meet a “white nationalist” who has a shabby appearance and a weak handshake, who can’t speak convincingly to people and lacks social IQ, I don’t experience any improvement or gain.
You have to have a message, but you also must be much more than a mere message.
True and well-said. I think that one of the main control mechanisms functioning in the minds of most whites is an imagined encounter with a crazed, aggressive, finger-pointing Jew. Even people who have never had such experiences seem to have this archetype embedded in their heads.
We will start winning when every member of society cringes at the idea of a confrontation with a righteously indignant, unapologetic advocate for white racial interests. That obviously requires more than just information. It requires courage and composure and moral strength.
Spreading ideas is just one aspect of metapolitics, priority one for us here. The second level is community building. But a strong group requires strong individuals, so community building automatically entails personal development, and indeed, a real community should make the personal development of its members a top priority.
I’m not going to compare myself to Kurtagic, or gloat that I independently reached an identical conclusion. But I’m just now reading this piece.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/06/learning-from-the-right/
The messenger is the message. People are interested in people, and it is the messenger that sells the message, not the message itself. If the average man in the street is comfortable with the messenger, he will be receptive to the message; if he is uncomfortable, he will avoid them both. Therefore, selling a message becomes a matter of style over substance. Substance is important, of course, but politically it is nothing without style, nothing without a personal style, nothing without personality and style. Making a message attractive begins by making the messenger attractive. An attractive messenger is one who makes the people he encounters feel good about themselves, and about being around, and being seen with, the messenger. If the messenger looks like a loser, then his message is for losers. A winning message is delivered by winners.
Perhaps certain realities are now simply more evident and understandable.
In spite of the hateful banshees who invariably emerge when I drop the name, it was Roissy who originally clued me into the importance of style, appearance, posture, and overall frame of mind and being.
Yeah, how likely is it that our people are going to line up behind some short tubby guy with a pudding-bowl haircut, t-shirt, cargo shorts, and flip-flops who watches negro sports all day and makes fun of educamated intelektshewals who read books?
Wait, don’t answer that.
Occidental Dissent: mouthpiece of the (Jim) Gilesocracy.
The fact that you didn’t rally to “Hunter’s” banner is merely a sign of your bad character.
Alas, he claims he’s quite thin now!!
He claims a lot of things that are proven lies or just don’t pass the laugh test. I predict he never shows himself in public again.
I hope that this “Hard Rightist” will make his exodus from White nationalists soon. As the saying goes, he should go far, and the sooner he starts the better. But I don’t expect him to keep his word.
He needs us to kick around.
We will start winning when every member of society cringes at the idea of a confrontation with a righteously indignant, unapologetic advocate for white racial interests.
Yes.
Greg J: “Pierce was right. Conservatism can’t win.”
Truth is timeless. Dr. Pierce wrote that essay 40 years ago and it is still influencing our best thinkers. As a Pierce loyalist I’m pleased to see you bestowing his teachings to a new generation.
Your assessment of OD and TOQ going mainstream hit the bulls-eye, Greg. What a shameful loss.
Dr. Pierce defined liberalism as a “disease of the brain.” I know what you mean though by your personally relating to smart liberals. Many of Dr. Pierce’s best members were independent-minded, former liberals, and a majority of Alliance members were raised Christians, just as he was. They came to adopt his viewpoint on that question, as on other issues: https://counter-currents.com/2010/10/on-christianity/
Dr. Pierce would categorize Whites as being “live and let live” libertarians for the most part. That’s how he described himself politically before his own radicalization. That’s fine in peaceful times, in a homogeneous society, but we can’t afford such complacency any longer. We must organize without compromise around the long-term interests of our race, with purpose and with urgency!
Excellent commentary on leadership, Evan! I liked the part where you said “People must want to be led by you.” That’s it. We’ll know him when he presents himself.
You reminded me of Dr. Pierce when you wrote, “All that being right proves is that we understand the reasons for our decay and decline. Being in decay and in decline is unattractive. Our answer, in the end, will not be essentially verbal.”
I was having dinner with Dr. Pierce in his home soon after going to work with him years ago and said something naive like, “We’ll prevail because we’re right.” I’ll never forget his slamming that big fist of his on the table, shaking everything, and with a booming voice saying, “God damn it! It’s not enough to be right. We’re going to have to fight like hell!” He knew how to make his point and make it stick.
Again, “Pierce was right.” It helps that we are right, but it is might that will win the day for us.
Will, thanks for your kind words. I always enjoy your stories about Dr. Pierce. Yes, being right is not enough. We will have to fight like hell. But we have to be right about whom we are fighting and how to do it.
In the end, we are fighting for the power to determine the future of life on Earth, which for all we know is the only life in the universe.
I am now working on an essay on Pierce’s cosmotheism, and why such a vision is necessary.
I will be at the Am Ren Conference in Charlotte in February. I hope to see you there.
Greg J: “Will, thanks for your kind words. I always enjoy your stories about Dr. Pierce. Yes, being right is not enough. We will have to fight like hell. But we have to be right about whom we are fighting and how to do it.
“In the end, we are fighting for the power to determine the future of life on Earth, which for all we know is the only life in the universe.
“I am now working on an essay on Pierce’s cosmotheism, and why such a vision is necessary.
“I will be at the Am Ren Conference in Charlotte in February. I hope to see you there.”
—
Thank you. I’d attend if they’ll let me in and if there’s room for both me and the Tsarina at your vanguardist banquet table of nine. We couldn’t properly call ourselves vanguardists if we have more than one table in among all those mainstreamers’, right?
Ah! the importance of Dr. Pierce’s Cosmotheist vision. There’s a subject I’d thoroughly enjoy discussing with you and other vanguardists face-to-face. It’s said that there’s nothing so powerful as the idea whose time has finally come. That idea: a non-Yahwehist, Nature-based religion, exclusively for Whites, and geared for our long-term preservation and advancement. Big Jew can’t deal with such a determined, exclusionary, ethnocentric goy belief system that’s opposed to his Abrahamic creeds.
Here JamieK from WNN gives some helpful information:
“Can you help me show what you’ve done to the key people who will be in Charlotte on Feb. 4-6?…We are already sure to fill most of one of the banquet tables of nine at AmRen with WNN folks who have already told me that they are attending. This is going to be a great team…We need to raise about $500 to make this happen…All I need to make my part of the presentation happen is one round-trip airplane ticket from North Dakota to Charlotte. If anybody has any frequent flyer miles that could help get such a ticket, that would also be a way to get the job done.”
That Charlotte is just a two-hour drive from our home makes attending the AmRen gathering a possibility for us. We could even pay our own way.
Yes, we will make room for you and the Tsarina, if we have to bump two Swamis to do it.
I remember “Yggdrasil” from years ago. In his articles he always referred to Jews as the “inner party” instead of Jews. It’s like conservative oriented people feel they’ll be struck by lightning if they say the word Jew. I envision them screaming “it hurts, it hurts, precious” just like Gollum in LOTR when someone utters Jew.
No doubt white nationalists could probably fine tune their strategy and tactics but the fact remains that if the way out was through conservatism and the conservatives then why does the white race in North America stand practically at the abyss in 2010? Conservatives lose more often than they win and if they were successful at defending white racial interests then white nationalism would never have emerged.
Just when we thought conservatives were growing a spine Haley Barbour pleads for forgiveness after telling the truth about the citizens councils in the Southern states. Predicably, once the media dialed up the pressure and the professional negroes (Sharpton, Jackson) went on the attack the conservative Barbour cried uncle. Ditto for conservative chest beater Newt Gingrich during the Sonia Sotomayor nomination who, after rightly calling her a racist, retracted his remarks. When has a liberal or radical leftist every apologized for insulting whites?
The more things change the more they stay the same. Revilo Oliver once rhetorically asked if liberals can be educated. It seems we must now ask that very same question of the conservatives.
Well said, Greg! TOQ even had a policy position on health care reform–as if universal health care and getting rid of the middle men in the insurance racket who rake off 30 to 50% of all the premiums patients pay would be a real disaster for whites. Absolute idiocy and simple mindedness of people who neither understand the issues at stake (but think they do) and take a dogmatic position based on some ideology like the free market or “sound money”–whatever that is. Even MacDonald who seems like a bright fellow felt like he had to opine on health care reform.
And how about this:
“A restoration of meaningful democracy.”
Is that really our future? Democracy? Isn’t that one of the factors that brought us this disaster?
The reason White Conservatives won’t win is because they lack the imagination to use Chadwick LeCroy’s murder by an afrovoodoo thug (oppressed and marginalized, no doubt) as a racial flash point. We miss all our opportunities, whereas our enemies seize all. I have doubts about our survival as a race.
Compare the faces of the victim and the perp and you will see history writ large.
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/habitual-offender-charged-with-789133.html
Two seemingly disparate groups can certainly operate in concert with the same goal in mind. And in fact they do.
Set up Counter-Currents as the evil White Nationalist Vanguard, bad and dangerous to know (“bad cop”), while at the same time presenting TOQ as a group of harmless, confused conservatives who hold weak views on race and the JQ and yet who strive to defend Judeo-Christianity and Western Civilization (“good cop”).
Doing so will naturally attract conservatives, respectable Rightists, and GOP types to TOQ. Such individuals inevitably over time will be exposed to the ideas and objectives represented by the Counter-Currents crew.
Keep moving the boundaries of what is considered respectable White Nationalist thought to the right, slowly, gradually, almost imperceptibly, bringing mainstream “non-vanguardist” conservative hayseeds along with you over time. That is, if you can get them to move away from the sofa, beer cans, potato chips, and television set showing negro sports.
Positioning TOQ (and OD for that matter) in this way accomplishes this.
Greg,
Worse even than a conservative or a Republican, I am – horror of horrors – an economist. While we must, as you say, speak truth to those of our race who are willing to hear, it seems to me that our first duty is to starve the multicultural beast by withdrawing our economic support.
We must cancel our cable, stop buying major brands, stop watching professional sports, save money and buy precious metals, and create a reinforcing status loop that will encourage such behavior. You would be surprised at how few White Nationalists are willing to do these simple things – things that save them money. Most seem to be addicted to the consumer society and its vices of debt and dependence.
Even more important, we White Nationalists must supply our fellow Whites with the blueprints and tools to isolate themselves and their children from the popular culture. It is a first and very important step for us to show our people that we genuinely care about them and actively protect their welfare.
Ideologies tend to divide us while interests tend to unify us. I fear you underestimate just how radical it is just to insist that Whites have separate and distinct interests that need to be advanced. Republican politicians never think about this – never! They certainly think about the interests of their campaign contributors, but not about Republican voters as a separate class having unique interests needing representation. And, of course, Republican voters serve as a useful proxy for Whites employed in the private sector.
But if you stop and think about it, all we need do is convince our fellow Whites and their political representatives that Whites (or Republican voters, if that is more palatable in the first conversation) have separate and distinct interests from the Blacks, Browns and Jews (or the Democratic constituencies if that is more palatable) and the battle is won.
Once Whites and the politicians who represent them start thinking about White interests, then White Nationalism follows more or less automatically. And it is much easier to sell the benefits of advancing our group interests than it is to sell an strange ideology that appears to be a marker of low status in the popular culture.
It is a marketing approach, Greg! TOQ is a public board! After all, our Jewish enemies don’t go around wearing signs saying “We Jews are out to exterminate your race, Whitey, by turning you brown, stupid, infertile and dependent!” That is the program they pursue, but it is not what they market!
We must market the benefits of separation for Whites, rather than the probable consequences of that process to the alien. And we must emphasize that much of the process of separation can be undertaken by voluntary action independent of the political process.
BTW, I am glad to see that you are still out there fighting the good fight!!
Gardner writes: “all we need do is convince our fellow Whites and their political representatives that Whites (or Republican voters, if that is more palatable in the first conversation) have separate and distinct interests from the Blacks, Browns and Jews (or the Democratic constituencies if that is more palatable) and the battle is won.”
That’s not the battle. Whites already know they have distinct interests from their ethnic competitors. The battle is to convince our people that we are RIGHT in pursuing our group interests, which often conflict with the group interests of our competitors. That is no small battle.
The Republican Party is committing slow motion suicide precisely because its members and leaders are convinced that they would be immoral to pursue policies to preserve the white majority. We have to win on that issue, and it is an inescapably moral issue that is not going to be decided by lobbying and voting.
As for “marketing” and TOQ being a “public board”: TOQ has been explicitly dealing with biological race differences and the Jewish Question for ten years now. That is a matter of public record. The fact that John Gardner is now (also publicly) walking away from that at TOQ Online and then coming here (also publicly) to sell this as “marketing” is hard to figure.
Talking out of both sides of one’s mouth in public should be the end of one’s credibility with honest and intelligent men. Our cause needs more rather than fewer people like that. Repulsing honest men while coddling pathological liars and mental patients like Hunter Wallace is no way to build the kind of counter-elite that is necessary to regain control of our racial destiny.
Yggdrassil: And we must emphasize that much of the process of separation can be undertaken by voluntary action independent of the political process.
I don’t see how separation can be achieved in the near term, long term or distant future as long as the regime’s forced integration laws exist. The regime will never repeal those laws, and non-Whites will always follow Whites wherever they go because they want the benefits of White society. Hence, voluntary separation does not seem likely.
“Hunter Wallace” delivers his promised “smackdown”. It is a combination of his inimitable mendacity, myopia, pettiness, and chutzpah.
It’s not as good as this post, though, which basically says: “Republicans admit they aren’t going to do shit on immigration. This sounds like a cause for concern, but actually it’s great news. The most we can hope for is a worthless symbolic victory. I would be very concerned if the Republicans were pushing for something meaningful. Their downplaying of immigration shows how sincere and committed they are to immigration restriction.”
Does “Hunter Wallace” have a job? He claimed he turned down multiple lucrative job offers to stay in Virginia this summer. How is he able to pick up and move at the drop of a hat? How is he able to spend two months locked in his room having a “stress-induced psychosis”?
If he has a job, how does he have time to spend hours every day on his website bitterly denouncing “vanguardists”, go to the gym all the time, help raise another man’s child, pick up sluts in bars, get heavily involved in Republican politics, and obsessively follow college football and his favorite negro affletes?
Very simple: none of it is real. The gym, the girlfriend, the job offers, living in Charlottesville, the Bahamas, none of it. We are dealing with a pathological liar and a lunatic. It was very painful and costly, but the greatest lesson I learned in 2010 is that the words of crazy people are meaningless, even when they are saying things that happen to be true. A stopped watch is right twice a day. But you don’t keep checking it on the off chance that it accidentally conforms to the correct time.
It’s crazy. Mostly, though, I think it’s just narcissistic. If you’re overtly preoccupied with whether you are “winning” in relation to other individuals, you’re apt to go mad. Online racialist conversation turns out to be full of examples of this.
A breath of level-headed commentary from Gregor over @ OD:
“For me, CC articles have opened up a whole world of thinkers who had ‘disappeared’ from popular culture. We must know our past and our great thinkers in order to know who we are, and how that fits into ‘reality’…”
“(Note: there was no need to use either the term ‘mainstreamer’ or ‘vanguardist’ in this comment. Why? Both are disordered thought categories which do more to confuse than clarify. Creating the label ‘vanguardist’ applying it to a mental box, and then filling that box with all kinds of boogeymen, evil gods, etc. is a distraction and division, and not much else. It’s the equivalent of calling a White person a ‘Nazi’ if that person wants to preserve his people. Not good stuff.)”
@ Gardner’s claim that “the trick is to make the ‘them’ apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents” is just a version of the old idea that we can “sneak up on the Jews” and catch them napping.
Posted elsewhere by Matt Parrott and republished in VNN on August. The original article contained a pic on Disney’s character:I Love All My Honey Pots!
Please Welcome our Special Guest Contributor: Winnie the Pooh!
“Why I’m Joining the SPLC”
I’m angry at White Nationalism because they’re all a bunch of “Laptop Luftwaffe” costume clown Nazis. I’ve never actually organized a single pro-White event or accomplished one single quantifiable goal for my people in my solid decade of typing about it on the Internet, but I am a big expert on the very firm beliefs that I’ve had for a couple weeks.
Behold, I shall now preach at you in a hateful and condescending tone…
Granted, I was proudly standing in a hooded robe in a darkened field surrounded by klansmen in the warm glow of a lit cross a few weeks ago. But some people on the Internet hurt my feelings and I am therefore no longer a White Nationalist. My days of giggling behind a digital camera and glad-handing African invaders on behalf of White people is over.
I’ve devised a brilliant new strategery, one of wholeheartedly embracing anti-White “conservatives” that I shall call: Radical Realism. According to my unassailable logic, White Americans strongly disagree with my beliefs, so I will now strongly disagree with my own beliefs, too. From now on, I will cleverly support those who are vociferously anti-White but whose actions happen to align tangentially with White interests.
This is why I’ve decided to throw my (ample) weight behind the Southern Poverty Law Center. You see, their recent initiative is going after employers who abuse guest workers. Going after employers who exploit migrant laborers is very good for Whites! SPLC Director Mark Potok is a secret friend of ours, but has cleverly disguised himself as a fierce civil rights campaigner like Glenn Beck. You have to be extremely smart to get it, and he probably seems like an enemy to people who are retards. Fortunately for you, you have a very smart leader like myself to tell you what’s brilliant and what’s retarded.
…And you’ll continue taking me seriously, because you’re retarded.
Parrott is one of our most witty commentators today. He is doing a lot over at The Occidental Observer.
I’ve come to the racialist camp from the most unheard of field: the toll of child abuse in adult life. I have done some activism against psychiatry, which instead of placing the blame where it belongs (poor parenting) takes a shortcut and blames the victim (“Take your Ritalin, Andy”).
Why have the major critics of psychiatry failed, Tom Szasz and the group led by Peter Breggin? Because they’re too chicken cowards to point the finger at the abusive parents, the basic etiology of mental disorders (my last eight entries in my blog deal with this parental etiology and I won’t expand on it here). In other words, presently anti-psychiatrists limit their critique to the medical model and the psychiatric drugging of children. Like TOQ and OD (I’ve removed both from my blog list), critics of psychiatry believe that “the trick is to make the ‘them’ [the parents] apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents”. Pointing directly the finger at the parents is too strong meat for the PC world to digest, believe the critics of the mental health professions. Result: anti-psychiatry has become stagnated without making a real dent on the system.
Same with white interests. The Winnie Poohs (Parrot’s article was clearly about Hunter Wallace but it now seems that others are joining the honey club) won’t arrive anywhere. They are not passing the acid test of genuine nationalism: (1) explicitly racial, (2) name the Jew and (3) the ethno-state as the ultimate goal. Just one example: if Cambridge University published a book, Esau’s Tears, that seems to acknowledge that anti-Semitism is to a certain extent justified, this can only mean that it’s not true that we should use euphemisms instead of saying “Jew”.
Wolfgang wrote:
@ Set up Counter-Currents as the evil White Nationalist Vanguard, bad and dangerous to know (“bad cop”), while at the same time presenting TOQ … “good cop”.
Nope. Wrong analogy. TOQ and OD are now flagrantly violating the acid test for white nationalism. The real analogy would be setting up the Northwest Front as the “bad cop” and C-C & the Occidental Observer as the “good cop”.
Both kind of cops are necessary. Click on the above NWF link and listen a 7-minute clip about what Harold Covington says to conservatives. While he has in mind the Tea Party and the Republican chickens, it’s germane to OD’s and TOQ’s “going mainstream”.
Greater Depression
The figure of 15 million unemployed reported by the government and regurgitated by the corporate media is one of the biggest lies in the history of lies. The real figure is 30 million and I will prove it using the government’s own data. I created the chart below from BLS data (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt) to prove that we are in the midst of a Greater Depression and no amount of spin by politicians and the media can wish it away. When we look at jobs in America across the decades, a picture of a country in decline, captured by financial elites, reveals itself. In 1970, America still produced goods, ran trade surpluses, and paid wages that allowed families to thrive with only one parent working. Only 34.6% of the population was employed, with a third of these workers producing goods.
….
Whether it was due to the woman’s movement of the 1970s or due to financial necessity, the percentage of the population employed grew relentlessly until it reached 46.8% in the year 2000. The level of 46.8% meant that when the opportunity to be employed was available, this percentage of Americans wanted a job. Since 2000 the population of the U.S. has grown by 28.9 million people. The labor force between the ages of 18 and 64 has grown by 26.1 million people since 2000. The government insists that millions of Americans have chosen to “leave the workforce” and should not be considered unemployed. This is laughable. Why would people choose to leave the workforce when wages are stagnant, retirement looms, prices relentlessly rise, and they are drowning in debt? The truth is that at least 46.8% of the population wants to be employed. That means that 145.2 million Americans would be working if they had the chance. Only 130.5 million are currently employed. This means that there are really 30 million Americans unemployed versus the 15 million reported by the government and MSM.
Not only is the country short 30 million jobs, but the type of jobs reveal a country of paper pushers, consultants, temp workers, government drones, waitresses, and clerks. The chart below shows the distribution of jobs through the decades.
In 1970, jobs in the goods producing industries made up 31.2% of all jobs. Today, they account for 13.8% of all jobs. The apologists will proclaim that corporate America just got phenomenally more efficient and productive. That is another falsehood. In 1970, we were a net exporter, consumer expenditures accounted for 62.4% of GDP, and private investment accounted for 14.7% of GDP. Today, we consistently run $500 billion to $700 billion annual trade deficits, consumer expenditures account for 71% of GDP, and private fixed investment is a pitiful 11.5% of GDP. We’ve degenerated from a productive goods producing society to a consumption based, debt fueled society. This is a classic late stage trait of declining empires. Rome and Britain before us experienced similar declines.
The most damning facts that can be garnered from the BLS data relate to how we’ve become a nation of bankers, real estate agents, accountants, lawyers, tax specialists, and fast food fry cooks. Manufacturing jobs have dropped from 25% of all jobs in 1970 to less than 9% today. Jobs in the spreadsheet generating, credit default swap creating, subprime mortgage pushing, frivolous lawsuit filing, tax evasion sector of the economy went from 12% in 1970 to 19% today.
The misinformation and lies will continue. The MSM keeps repeating that jobs are coming back. You don’t hear which jobs. Hysterically, the four fastest growing job categories according to the BLS are:
1.Administrative and support services
2.Food services and drinking places
3.Couriers and messengers
4.Performing arts and spectator sports
The well paying goods producing jobs are never coming back. American manufacturing jobs have been shifted overseas for more than two decades by corporate America. Now those jobs have become more sophisticated, like semiconductors, software and even medical and finance. The American middle class is relegated to being McDonalds fry cooks, Wal-Mart greeters, and temp workers. What has happened to the American middle class was not an accident. The wealth of the country has been pillaged by an elite group at the very top of the economic food chain, who were able to reap the rewards of globalization (outsourcing American jobs), manipulate the debt based financial system through synthetic fraud products, and avoid taxes by hiring thousands of lawyers, accountants and tax consultants. When you hear that the rich need lower taxes, corporate taxes are too high and increased productivity is great for America, remember what they have done to the country since 1970. If corporate America and its leaders continue to reap obscene profits while the middle class falls further into the abyss, societal unrest will beckon.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-dude-wheres-my-job
Robert, you whacked a grand slam there. An incisive presentation fella. The White middle class has indeed been asset stripped and is heading for economic penury. The Jews and their plutocratic retinue, in their insatiable greed, have gobbled a pound of flesh too much. They are killing their White Milk Herd. A White populist response is coming, and we White Nationalists need to front run it, when the sparks start to fly. The economic/political front is ultimately where we will get the most return for our efforts, all things considered. We need to fan the embers of this coming White prairie fire, and keep the System’s hacks form hijacking it.
As Carl Schmitt emphasised in The Concept of the Political, it is imperative in politics to clearly and accurately distinguish between friends and foes. This is also true of metapolitics. It is suicidal to identify foes as friends.
An important task of metapolitics is to break the pincer movement of left and right, liberal and conservative. They both represent the domination of foreign and sectional interests over our people. They are opposed to each other only in the sense that scissor blades are opposed to each other. They are two sides of the same system. They are partners in the condominium that is oppressing and destroying our people. The antagonism between them is largely fictitious, while their antagonism towards our people is very real. To use a Biblical metaphor, taking one side of the system against the other is like trying to cast out Satan with the aid of Beelzebub.
Greg Johnson is right that White nationalism is not conservative, at least not in the usual sense of the word. To use the words of Thierry Maulnier:
“The essential task of a true ‘nationalism’ must be not only to dissociate the national idea from the present political and economic structure of the nation but also to provoke or precipitate the disintegration of this dual structure so that a new national organization will come into being. . . . A democratic state, a society dominated by money, the present institutions no longer express what unites the nation and perpetuates it, but what consumes it and divides it.” (Cited in Zeev Sternhell, Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1986, p. 226.)
The impracticality of this tactic is obvious to anyone aware of the facts on the ground. It’s easily dispensed with by asking one question.
If every White nationalist boycotted the jewish media and corporations how many jewish organizations would go bankrupt?
The answer, as Captain Obvious would say, is “none at all.”
Jewry can destroy organizations with boycotts because they control at least half the wealth in the world, probably more. They had the economic power to stop the Ford Motor Company from distributing The International Jew 85 years ago and they’ve only gained power since.
Chew on that for a while. Henry Ford was one of the richest and most respected White men alive at the time and jewry swatted him down without breaking a sweat.
You attack the enemy where they’re weak, not where they’re damn near invincible.
Whites fighting the jewry with money is like a jew fighting Wladimir Klitschko with his fists.
Not wise.
With all due respect to Yggdrassil, and granting that he made many excellent points in his essay, I fully agree with you on this. Even a coherent boycott is useless independent of an overarching strategy. Mythology aside, it’s not like Rosa Parks did anything other than serve as a rallying point for the coordinated action of a very mature, well-funded political machine. It’s not like decades of Christian groups attempting to boycott this or that restaurant have put one dent in the leftist agenda.
And not only is it ineffective, it’s worse than ineffective: It’s not fun. We should develop and support alternatives to the “beast,” not scold our potential audience to be ascetic ideologues. One thing we can do, something Greg Johnson has excelled at, is making lemonade out of the mainstream media’s lemons by providing relevant commentary and reviews of the latest movies.
Convince your audience that they’re watching a movie made by Jews that’s about Jews swindling some honest White kids out of their billion dollar idea when they watch The Social Network. It’s easy enough to do, and you’ve just turned a blockbuster movie into pro-White propaganda for thousands of people . . . for free.
The exception here is for younger children, for whom it’s absolutely critical that they be exposed to the best possible vintage Disney cartoons, Grimm’s Fairy Tales, and other traditional material during the critical years within which they’re developing the moral template to which they’ll instinctively apply their experiences for the rest of their lives.
Puma posted:
“If every White nationalist boycotted the jewish media and corporations how many jewish organizations would go bankrupt?
The answer, as Captain Obvious would say, is ‘none at all.'”
I respectfully disagree. There is a nascent White Nationalist spirit arising in this country and it is being reflected in the media’s bottom line. The number of Jewish-controlled newspapers, news stations, and cable companies that are hemorrhaging red ink keeps growing. Entire staffs of reporters have been laid off. The newspapers are getting thinner and narrower, so that they look like the freebie Green Pages. You can’t walk into a grocery store without a newspaper representative on the sidewalk trying to sell you a subscription. Whites got sick of the newspapers bashing them and their wish to hold onto their country, so they simply discontinued their subscriptions. The newspapers have been unable to replace them with Negros and Mestizos.
Time Warner was losing money even before the economy started going bad. More and more people are giving up their cable subscriptions altogether.
At the beginning of the previous decade, loud-mouth liberals were fawned over by the press and could still command the type of money per picture that was mind-boggling. Later, loud-mouth liberals started losing the studios money. A couple of movies tried to keep their loud-mouth liberals working by pairing them with well-liked “conservative” stars. Those movies still lost money. Now, the loud-mouth liberals are on their own. The term “box-office poison” isn’t as openly discussed in the entertainment industry as it was back in the Golden Age of Hollywood, but it is going on.
Look at how quickly the movies go to video. Rarely do you see the movies last over a month in the theaters, anymore. With all the money spent on production that is not a good sign.
There was a lot of public anger over those bank bailouts and Goldman-Sachs and AIG are universally detested. How much of this bad feeling generated a spontaneous, grass-roots revolt among Whites. A “quiet riot,” if you will that involved guerrilla economics on the part of pissed off Whites?
This past Christmas, I tuned into one reporter fretting because shoppers were paying cash for Christmas presents rather than charging up their charge cards. That meant they were spending less and, of course, generating no new interest payments for the banks. Though it is partly bankers greedily jacking up interest rates, skittish Whites are tightening their belts and paying down their balances, not increasing them.
Mind you, this is so implicit that I highly doubt that the vast majority of Whites who are boycotting newspapers and cable and cutting off the banks could articulate why. But often these types of boycotts are more terrifying to the Masters of Discourse than organized boycotts, because it is so out of control. They cannot put a spin on it or screech about racism or Antisemitism.
The beauty of Implicit Whiteness is that, by engaging in it, the Usual Suspects are flushed out and expose themselves. There is the case of a journalist who did an anti-Goldman-Sachs article and just mentioned the top players by name, which resulted in several Jewish howlers to “Name The Jew” by accusing him of Antisemitism. Then there is Timothy “tick tock” Wise’s angry diatribe after some modest Tea Party successes. The NAACP and La Raza lost all credibility when they tried to play the race card on the Tea Party which is presenting itself as an aracial American Nationalist Party. In doing so, they admitted that most Non-Whites would not benefit from strict constitutional government which engages in austere fiscal practices.
Whites are not helpless as you may think. When a rich White patron in New York City noticed menorrahs at his bank, but no tree, he offered to pay for one and was turned down by a rather snotty clerk. He was so angry that he and several other rich Whites called the bank manager to close their accounts. The bank’s new policy is not to encourage donations from their Christian customers, but not to turn them down either. Effusive apologies were sent out and the tree was put up.
I feel Vanguardists are absolutely correct on several issues, but the one thing they make the mistake of doing is underestimating Implicit Whites, dismissing them as mindless lemmings. Each person out there has their “snapping” point. Yours came much earlier in the game than most. But what we are seeing right now are millions of little White bands going, “Oh, Snap!” And we ain’t seen nothing yet.
I also get this sense of disgruntlement from Vanguardists, because a lot of your ideas have gone mainstream and the “new kids” on the block are getting the credit. I realize this can be frustrating to anyone who has an ego. I hope you understand that YOUR words inspired less infamous WNists with no paper trail to repackage and filter them for mainstream consumption.
Twenty years ago, I was one of those white lemmings that backed off from two well-meaning but scary Vanguardists that tried to warn me about “ZOG.” But then Kevin McDonald and others repackaged that phrase and put it through an Implicit White filter and then all the sudden, even on television, conservative news commentators are talking about a liberal “hostile elite” working against the interests of working and middle class [White] Americans.
IMO, Vanguardists are the midwives to the nascent White Nationalist movement I see slowly but surely coalescing right now. Midwives don’t necessarily get the credit they deserve for making a safe birth possible, but they still are necessary and should be proud of their contribution.
Vanguardists are still vital to White Nationalism. They are WNism’s advance scouts, because they are keen-eyed visionaries who can spot an Anti-White agenda a mile off. I have found ALL of the articles here at Cross Currents particularly illuminating.
So I think if both the Mainstreamists and the Vanguardists pull together while maintaining their positions on the rowboat, we’ll actually reach our goal without tipping the boat over.
Chechar: “TOQ and OD are now flagrantly violating the acid test for white nationalism. The real analogy would be setting up the Northwest Front as the “bad cop” and C-C & the Occidental Observer as the “good cop”.
“Both kind of cops are necessary. Click on the above NWF link and listen a 7-minute clip about what Harold Covington says to conservatives.”
—
What a lovely choice, “Hunter” or Harold. Is that what we’re down to? That reminds me of Dr. Pierce saying that the Jew gives the American female consumer a choice between fixing her hair with red curlers or blue curlers. “Take your pick, Ma’am, and have a good day.”
No, thanks, Chechar. Those would be seven precious minutes I could never get back.
Greg J: “We are dealing with a pathological liar and a lunatic. It was very painful and costly, but the greatest lesson I learned in 2010 is that the words of crazy people are meaningless, even when they are saying things that happen to be true.”
“Talking out of both sides of one’s mouth in public should be the end of one’s credibility with honest and intelligent men…Repulsing honest men while coddling pathological liars and mental patients…is no way to build.”
—
You did learn a great, if painful lesson in 2010, Greg. Like they say, no pain, no gain. If what you’re attempting were easy, everybody would be doing it.
Here’s hoping that the New Year brings you further insight into how we “vanguardists” must deal with the GD pathological liars and mental patients who claim to be our Leader.
No coddling of pathological liars and mental patients in 2011 would make for a good resolution and lead to a fruitful year for C-C.
Click on this link http://noncounterproductive.blogspot.com/2010/10/perils-of-hobbyism-by-dr-william-l.html and take in a 7-minute read from Dr. Pierce to grasp what he had to say about this type.
VANGUARDIST RULE #1 – Count your friends, not your enemies.
Yes: I know there has been much infighting between the Pierce and the Covington camps. As I’ve recently said in TOQ, I admire both. When I speak of a “bad cop” you can visualize a Turner or a Hunter (the novel, not Wallace!) character if you wish.
But my simple point was that the people of the Winnie Pooh Honey Club won’t win an ethno-state for us. Bad cops will have a chance… in the future.
Greg Johnson’s comments on the relationship between metapolitics, community building, and individual development remind me of Robert Nisbet’s reference in The Quest for Community (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2010) to “the inspired mixture of community and assertive individuality” that fortified primitive Christianity as well as communism (pp. 29-30). I think that White nationalism requires an “inspired mixture of community and assertive individuality” like the one Maurice Bardèche describes in the concluding chapter of Qu’est-ce que le fascisme? (Paris: Les Sept Couleurs, 1961).
White nationalism can offer an alternative to the fraudulent and destructive liberty that Bardèche describes thus (pp. 184-185):
“La liberté anarchique des démocraties n’a pas seulement permis le détournement de la volonté populaire et son exploitation au profit d’intérêts privés, elle a eu un résultat plus grave encore. Elle nous fait une vie ouverte de toutes parts à toutes les inondations, à tous les miasmes, à tous les vents fétides, sans digue contre la décadence, l’exportation et surtout la médiocrité. Elle nous fait vivre dans une steppe que tout peut envahir. Il n’y a qu’un mot d’ordre purement négatif : défendre la liberté. Mais cette liberté est comme une drogue qu’on boit d’un seul coup, elle est un chrême qu’on reçoit et ensuite l’homme est abandonné dans cette steppe sans défense. Les monstres font leur nid dans cette steppe, les rats, les crapauds, les serpents la transforment en cloaque. Ce pullulement a le droit de croître, comme toutes autres orties et chiendents. La liberté, c’est l’importation de n’importe quoi. Toute la pouillerie dont les autres peuples veulent se débarrasser, elle a aussi le droit de s’installer sur la steppe sans détour, d’y parler haut, d’y faire la loi et aussi de mêler à notre sang des rêves négroïdes, des relents de sorcellerie, des cauchemars de cannibales qui tapisseront comme des fleurs monstrueuses des cervelles étrangères que nous ne reconnaîtrons plus : l’apparition d’une race adultère dans une nation est le véritable génocide moderne et les démocraties le favorisent systématiquement. Quant à la médiocrité, elle monte comme un empoisonnement insidieux dans ces peuples qu’on gave d’instruction sans jamais leur donner un but et un idéal. Elle est la lèpre des âmes de notre temps. Personne ne croit à rien, tout le monde à peur d’être dupe. L’Etat démocratique ne distribue de tâche à personne, il ne donne qu’une voix creuse, une liberté sans contenu, sans visage, qu’on dilapide en jouissances miteuses. Chacun est enfermé dans son égoïsme. Et chacun voit avec dégoût chez son voisin sa propre image et l’image de son triste bonheur. Et ils regardent avec haine ces miroirs de leur misère.”
This liberty has destroyed or degraded White community and White individuality. It has turned our people into rootless nomads, careerist barbarians, and consumerist sheep. It is opposed to collective identity, solidarity, and sovereignty. It gives us an abstract, fictitious, and useless liberty, and robs us of the limited but concrete liberties that we need if we are to live as a truly free people.
Bardèche describes the fascist ideal of the national community in this way (pp. 185-187):
“Le fascisme peut-il être une foi ? C’est un bien grand mot. Nos religions meurent, elles sont exsangues et l’homme attend de nouveaux dieux. Aucune image de la cité ne peut remplacer les dieux. Mais le destin des hommes peut encore être une raison de vivre. Si nos vies sont condamnées à la nuit, la joie de construire, la joie de se dévouer, la joie d’aimer, et aussi le sentiment d’avoir fait loyalement notre métier d’homme, sont encore l’ancre à laquelle nous pouvons nous attacher. Ces avenues qu’on se trace pour soi, c’est elles qui ont sauvé les hommes de notre temps qui ne se résignaient pas à la médiocrité et au dégoût. Ces routes de la joie, le rêve fasciste veut les ouvrir à tous les hommes. Il n’y a pas de fascisme véritable sans une idée qui montre à tous les perspectives d’une œuvre grandiose. Et le fascisme véritable consiste précisément à associer toute la nation à cette œuvre, à la mobiliser toute entière pour elle, à faire de chacun de ceux qui travaillent un pionnier et un soldat de cette tâche et à lui donner ainsi cette fierté d’avoir combattu à son rang. L’esprit du fascisme consiste avant tout à pénétrer chacun de la grandeur de la tâche accomplie par tous et à donner ainsi à chacun une joie intérieure, une occupation profonde, un objectif vital qui éclairera et transformera sa propre existence. Il est faux de penser que cette idée doit s’exprimer par une politique de conquêtes. C’est la forme facile et vulgaire des grandes entreprises et elle n’appartient plus à notre temps. L’équipement d’un pays, la réalisation d’un ordre social juste et d’un peuple sain, la transformation de nos conditions de vie en fonction du monde moderne, le rayonnement de notre influence et de notre exemple sont des tâches difficiles et belles auxquelles chacun peut contribuer à sa place. Tout est aventure lorsqu’on y met l’esprit d’aventure.”
Echoing Maurice Barrès regarding “the national energy,” Bardèche remarks (pp. 189-190):
“Le but de l’Etat fasciste est donc de former des hommes selon un certain modèle. Contrairement aux Etats démocratiques, les Etats fascistes n’hésitent pas à enseigner une morale. La volonté et l’énergie dont dispose la nation leur paraissant son capital le plus précieux, ils mettent au premier rang et ils cultivent de préférence les qualités collectives qui forgent l’énergie nationale et la garantissent. Ils cherchent donc à développer comme qualités nationales la discipline, le goût de l’ordre, l’amour du travail, le sentiment du devoir et de l’honneur. Dans la pratique des tâches quotidiennes, ces principes de la morale nationale s’expriment par le sens des responsabilités, le sens de la solidarité, la conscience des devoirs du commandement, le sentiment d’être à sa place dans un ordre accepté et dans une tâche importante. Ces sentiments ne s’enseignent pas dans les écoles par des phrases inscrites au tableau noir. Si l’éducation doit les faire naître chez l’enfant, c’est le régime lui-même qui doit les développer chez l’homme par la justice dans la répartition du revenu national, par l’exemple qu’il donne, par les tâches qu’il propose. La discipline ne naît pas dans l’action par un coup de baguette magique ni en en réponse à quelque appel grandiloquent : elle est une marque d’estime que le peuple donne à ceux qui le dirigent, et un régime doit la mériter chaque jour par le sérieux de son action et la sincérité de son amour du pays. La discipline d’une nation est une arme qui se forge comme la discipline d’une armée, c’est entendu, c’est un trésor qu’on doit protéger, mais c’est aussi et c’est surtout la récompense des hommes qui se donnent tout entiers à leur tâche et qui sont eux-mêmes l’exemple du courage, du désintéressement et de l’honnêteté.”
Bardèche further remarks of the fascist ethic (pp. 191-193):
“Ce n’est pas seulement une autre image de la nation, c’est une autre image de l’homme que le fascisme propose. Parmi les qualités de l’homme, il y en a que l’esprit fasciste met au-dessus de toutes les autres, parce qu’elles lui paraissent les qualités mêmes sur lesquelles reposent la force et la durée des Etats et aussi celles qui permettent à l’homme de donner un sens à sa vie. Ces qualités sont celles qu’on a exigées de tous temps des hommes qui participent à des entreprises difficiles ou dangereuses, le courage, la discipline, l’esprit de sacrifice, l’énergie, vertus qu’on exige des soldats au combat, des pionniers, des équipages en péril. Ce sont des qualités proprement militaires et pour ainsi dire, animales : elles nous rappellent que la première tâche de l’homme est de protéger et de dompter, vocation que la vie grégaire et pacifique des cités nous fait oublier, mais que le danger réveille et toute œuvre difficile où l’homme retrouve ses adversaires naturels : les tempêtes, les catastrophes, les déserts. Ces qualités animales de l’homme en ont engendré d’autres qui en sont inséparables, car elles appartiennent au code de l’honneur qui s’est établi dans le danger : ce sont la loyauté, la fidélité, la solidarité, le désintéressement. Sur ces qualités se sont établis de tous temps les rapports des hommes entre eux aux mêmes heures d’incertitude et d’abandon. Elles constituent un système d’engagements mutuels sur lesquels tous les groupes d’hommes peuvent vivre : le reste de la morale n’est qu’une série d’applications, qui a varié et qui variera toujours selon les temps et les lieux. Mais ces qualités mêmes qui sont fonctionnelles, pour ainsi dire, et que le rêve fasciste tient pour essentielles, elles en développent d’autres à leur tour qui ne sont que le raffinement de ces qualités d’applications, qui a varié et qui variera toujours primordiales et qui deviennent essentielles à leur tour, à mesure que l’animal humain est plus conscient de ce qu’il est et de ce qu’il vaut. Ces qualités sont un luxe que les sociétés militaires se donnent dès qu’elles ont pris leur forme et constitué leur hiérarchie. Elles comprennent la fierté, l’exactitude de la parole donnée, la générosité, le respect de l’adversaire courageux, la protection de ceux qui sont faibles et désarmés, le mépris pour ceux qui mentent et au contraire l’estime pour ceux qui s’opposent loyalement. Ces qualités civiques que nous sentons encore palpiter obscurément dans nos cités décadentes ont été l’honneur de ceux qui ont fait, dans le passé, métier de se battre et d’être pleinement des hommes. On les retrouve aussi bien dans les Ordres militaires et religieux que chez les princes sarrasins et les samouraïs. Elles constituent, au fond, le seul code que les sociétés militaires aient reconnu conforme à leur vocation, elles sont l’essentiel de l’honneur du soldat.”
“Assertive individuality”–as distinct from individualism–is very much a part of the fascist ethic. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “the free man is a fighter.”
I dare say that is liberal democracy, not fascism, which belongs to the past. Liberal democracy has failed utterly as a satisfactory form of polity for our people. It is good for the Jews–which is why they and their lackeys have a messianic itch to spread it throughout the world–but it is not good for our people. And yet many racially conscious Whites are uncritical of this regime and hope that by some miracle that it can be made to serve our people. It seems that they want a liberal democratic regime minus non-Whites. But it’s a package deal, and racial survival and self-respect requires the elimination of both.
“Hunter” says he tries to ignore “vanguardists” but they “force” him to respond. In actuality, virtually every single post “Hunter” writes is either a direct or indirect whine about how bad “vanguardists” are. He’d have to nothing to write about if he stopped whining about “vanguardists” and blaming them for everything under the sun.
The “Hunter Wallace” pattern
Every year or two he has a violent ideological shift.
In each “phase” he becomes obsessed with one person. This person becomes his ultimate bete noire and evil incarnate.
Fade The Butcher : Il Ragno :: Prozium : Guy White :: Hunter Wallace : Greg Johnson
He makes up stories about his personal life, from his pregnant wife to his engagement to Morris Dees’ daughter to his “ripped” body and the bevy of girlfriends. He craves the attention and compliments from his coterie of sycophants about his imaginary life.
Yes, that pretty much sums it up.
Hail made a good comment at OD.
Does Pat Buchanan go on daily diatribes against “vanguardists”?
David Duke?
Jared Taylor?
Peter Brimelow?
Alex Linder once said that its impossible to sneak up on the world’s most paranoid people, and while Vladimir Putin did appear to do it in Russia — both Greg Johnson and Alex Linder are dead right, because after Putin did it to them — they are on full alert for a repeat.
Head on. White Nationalists need to go on full offense against this enemy.
re Clytemnestra
Posted December 30, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Brilliant comment. White light is a broad spectrum and we need a broad spectrum response. Those who feel great passion to say something or do things a certain way should act and speak up for their view. This advances us forward.
I think we’re losing sight of the real issue here: white nationalism is a subset of the question of how to recapture our society from the progressives.
Since 1789 in France, the rabble among us have been banding together using self-pity as an excuse, and overthrowing our political structures in the name of “equality.” All liberals, anarchists, progressives, leftists, etc. are of this nature.
They’ve ruined white nations and thrust us into fratricidal wars and genocidal immigration.
You need to recapture that power structure, and disenfranchise the Sally Oblivious and Bill Know-Nothings out there. Jews? Pitting white nationalists against conservatives? Details, not the big picture.
All IMHO, from a longtime reader of both parties in this debate.
Brett,
I am a regular reader of your site, and I think highly of it. But on the Jewish question I strongly disagree with you.
Yes, White Nationalism is a species of the larger genus of anti-egalitarianism. But looking at politics at that level of abstraction is misleading.
In the struggle we face right now, today, the power structure is Jewish dominated, and what passes for conservatism is at best a distraction. At worst (and most of it is at worst) it has been effectively co-opted by the Jewish power structure.
We are not going to win unless we identify openly, and with great concreteness and specificity, the real enemies here.
In 1789 we would have faced different enemies. But in 2011, we must struggle against organized Jewry and assorted dupes and hirelings, including conservatives.
I wonder how long Hunter Wallace will persist in his grudge match with vanguardists in general and Greg Johnson in particular.
One thing I have observed about many trouble-makers on the internet is that they have little self-respect and much vanity and vindictiveness. This ensures that their motives for making a nuisance of themselves are inexhaustible. Their lack of self-respect ensures that nothing restrains them from being obnoxious, outrageous, and contemptible. Their behaviour inevitably provokes responses that wound their vanity and encourage them to be even more of a nuisance. “I’ll show them!” they might say to themselves. Their vicious character and poor judgment condemns them to travel in vicious circles.
H. L. Mencken’s description of William Jennings Bryan as an “ambulant boil” describes these individuals well. They are always inflamed, irritable, and ready to burst.
Another thing I have observed about trouble-makers is that they are often remarkably petty in the lies they tell. As compulsive liars, they have a compulsion to tell lies about all things, big and small. No lie is too big or too small to be told. The big lie technique is frequently combined with the small lie technique. Chutzpah is a matter of character and reveals itself in big and small things alike.
Chechar: “Yes: I know there has been much infighting between the Pierce and the Covington camps.”
—
You “know” nothing, Chechar. If you’d simply take the time to click on my name and read for a few minutes, the fog will clear and you won’t be so confused. You will be taken to the Web page “The Perils of Hobbyism” which features the only comment Dr. Pierce ever made about your Mr. Covington. There was never any “infighting” between these imagined “camps.”
FYI, ‘Williams v. Covington’ is a personal libel action I brought against Covington four years after Dr. Pierce wrote that because he was not only attacking the “Pierce camp” with his outrageous smears, but he was publishing lies about me, per se; that I’m a serial murderer, a mass murderer, a “deep-cover” FBI Special Agent, a thief, an arsonist, a wife-beater, an arsonist, a thief, and more. That’s against the law, you know. He even claims that I’m “John Doe #2, Timothy McVeigh’s handler. What would you do, Mr. Chechar, were you attacked in such a manner? I simply brought an action in North Carolina District Court that required Covington’s one-man “camp” to prove his outrageous claims of capital crimes against me. His “camp” lost under real world scrutiny because every word he had written about me was a lie. He fled NC rather than face the music, and has been running and hiding from the judgment ever since. There’s a nice reward for you if you can tell me where defendant Covington’s actual, real world “camp” is — not his Internet “camp.”
In 1998 the court awarded me $110.088, which, with accrued interest at 8% , now exceeds $200,000. That’s what you should “know” about defendant Covington. Just because Dr. Pierce mentioned Covington once to his followers in the monthly, internal National Alliance BULLETIN, advising them to ignore the nutty professional political saboteur and smear artist — compared with the literally thousands of Covington’s published attacks of Dr. Pierce and the National Alliance — does not mean that there was “infighting” between “camps.”
Clytemnestra: “I also get this sense of disgruntlement from Vanguardists, because a lot of your ideas have gone mainstream and the “new kids” on the block are getting the credit. I realize this can be frustrating to anyone who has an ego. I hope you understand that YOUR words inspired less infamous WNists with no paper trail to repackage and filter them for mainstream consumption.”
—
That you somehow see Dr. Pierce and Covington as competing “vanguardist” camps engaged in “infighting” shows me that you have not critically examined the “paper trails” of these men. Reading Covington’s fantasy fiction and glowing reviews of it do not address his elaborate real world fictions — some call it treason — against the deadly serious cause of White renewal.
Start using your real name, Clytemnestra (you, too, Chechar), and adopt an uncompromising stand for truth and against lies and liars and you’ll soon find yourself in my small, perfectly gruntled camp, and attacked by Covington. Come on in; the water’s warm.
@ Start using your real name, Clytemnestra (you, too, Chechar)
Everyone who clicks on my moniker hits my blog and voila, my real name is revealed.
@ There’s a nice reward for you if you can tell me where defendant Covington’s actual, real world “camp” is — not his Internet “camp.”
Didn’t you advance this offer at Occidental Dissent recently?
Through self-indulgence I have allowed this thread to drift toward movement personality gossip and feuds. I’m putting a stop to that now.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment