1,787 words
In the last few months, I have been working in earnest preparing to write The White Nationalist Manifesto. (Don’t expect it too soon, though. It is a project I have been thinking about and writing notes for since June of 2009.) Recently, I have been reading other manifestos and manifesto-like works: The Communist Manifesto, the Futurist manifestos, Francis Parkey Yockey’s The Proclamation of London, George Lincoln Rockwell’s White Power, and the like. None of them, however, struck me as ideal models. Then Matt Parrot’s Hoosier Nation showed up in the Counter-Currents mailbox, and I found my best model yet.
Matt Parrott is a 27 year old IT analyst who lives near Indianapolis. He is the founder of Hoosier Nation, a political activist group for which Hoosier Nation is a guidebook and manifesto. He is also a prolific writer and the host of Radio Free Indiana on the Voice of Reason Broadcast Network.
Hoosier Nation is a short book (88 pages), so it can easily be read in one sitting. It is well-written and witty, divided into short chapters that are often not much longer than a good opinion piece. Parrott’s ideas are quite radical, but his presentation is genial not strident, authoritative not apologetic, which is pretty much the ideal tone.
The goal of Hoosier Nation is to shape the ethnic consciousness of Indiana and the Midwest’s “Hoosiers” into a genuine national consciousness–a regional variant of European racial consciousness. Parrott believes that the United States is the primary threat to the racial and cultural survival of the American people(s)–the different European groups that settled this continent. Fortunately, the United States is also unsustainable and headed for an economic and political crackup. Parrott’s hope is that when that crackup comes, different states and regional identities will assert themselves. He is talking about the idea of a Hoosier nation today in the hope that it might become a reality tomorrow.
Who are the Hoosiers? As Parrott explains, Hoosiers are primarily Scots-Irish “hillbillies.” “Hoosier” derives from the Old English “hoo” for hill or highland, so it literally means hillbilly or highlander. The Scots-Irish are the restless, clannish, and fierce frontiersmen who were the shock troops of the conquest of this continent. Among Parrott’s Hoosier heroes are Johnny Appleseed, Daniel Boone, and Davy Crockett.
In today’s America, Hoosiers are disdained as rednecks and trailer trash and lumped with Nazis and Muslims because all three groups are uniquely resistant to the Judeo-liberal plutocracy that rules America. Hoosiers are a subset of the people disdained by Barack Obama for clinging to religion and guns. They are among the people discussed by Jim Goad in his hilarious and profound The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America’s Scapegoats
Matt Parrott is a genuine trailer-park bred and public school educated Hoosier. And a damn smart one, who could easily have turned his back on his heritage to better fit in with “the system.” But he didn’t. Instead, he has done justice to both the roots that particularize him and the intellect that opens him to the universal. He has turned that intellect back toward understanding and preserving his heritage from the corruptions and assaults of modernity. He is an example of how elitism and populism can be reconciled within an organic, folkish notion of society. The following passage gives a good sense of the tone and quality of his writing:
While the Hoosier may be less well-mannered than the Southern gentleman, he’s also less restrained by protocol and less tolerant of taking orders. While the Hoosier may be less patient with abstract theories and ideals than the Yankee, he’s also less vulnerable to being brainwashed. The English and Germanic Americans may have been the primary drivers of American economic and cultural achievement, but they wouldn’t have had a continent upon which to settle were it not for our heroic and uncompromising conquest of the frontier.
This is not to say that we Hoosiers don’t have culture, it’s just more primal in nature. While the civilized citizens of the coasts and cities conducted masterful symphonies, our forefathers crafted crude dulcimers and banjos from the wilderness around them and created powerful folk music. While the citizens perused their classics, our ancestors studied our bibles. While the citizens held elaborate and fanciful banquets, our ancestors got together on random occasions to party, play their backwoods instruments, sing their backwoods songs, and drink their backwoods moonshine.
The conditions we live in would be unacceptable to your typical New Yorker, our table manners would frighten your typical Georgian, and our parties wouldn’t be tolerated in Western saloons. But for all of its faults, our heritage may be unique in America because it’s the least vulnerable to the challenges we face. Unlike Southerners, we won’t follow our leaders to oblivion out of deference to class and protocol. Unlike Yankees, we can’t be duped by ideologues with their byzantine logic games into handing over the country our ancestors fought to win. It’s very possible that we, and we alone, hold the power to rescue the American nation from the brink of destruction.
But to accomplish this, we have to lead the way, setting an example for other Americans to emulate in embracing their own heritage. We have to stop and reflect on our Hoosier identities, celebrating what we retain of our heritage and reviving what we’ve lost. If you pronounce “wash” as “worsh,” continue to do so. Embrace your Hoosier twang and resist the popular culture which equates our accent with inferiority. If you live in a mobile home and drive an old truck, save that money you were going to spend to buy “respectable” things and start respecting yourself for a change.
When Matt talks, you can still hear that Hoosier twang, even when he is quoting Spengler at you.
The goal of Hoosier Nation is less to show the way to Hoosier independence than to work up the will. That said, the book contains some useful advice for would-be political activists. Parrott rejects facile dichotomies between “vanguardism” and populism. His inspirations and aspirations are populist, but he recognizes that peoples do not lead themselves; they are led by minorities: either by alien minorities that exploit them or by native minorities that protect them and that ideally are as organically connected with the masses as brains are to hands and feet.
White Nationalism is a folkish or populist world-view in that the common good is the supreme law. Yet we are elitists insofar as we recognize that the common man left to his own devices seldom arrives at the common good. Therefore, the great political problem is how to insure that the elites that inevitably rule, do so in the interests of the whole rather than in their own partial interests.
Matt’s conclusion is worth quoting for the beautiful way he fuses vanguardism and populism:
To be the vanguards of [the] revolution, we must do more than merely awaken, we must prepare. We must awaken others. We must offer a clear path back to safe harbor. But we must also be discrete, shrewd, and patient in our work until the time is ripe. We will need to be like Johnny Appleseed, humble and persistent as we plant the seeds of Hoosier sovereignty. We will need to be like Daniel Boone, prepared to survive in the wilderness. We will need to be like Davy Crockett, prepared to fight to the death for our liberty and our heritage.
We will need to become true Hoosiers again.
I recommend Hoosier Nation because it is an excellent piece of political prose, and because it contains many valuable lessons that can be applied by political activists of all persuasions in all locations.
But Hoosier nationalism is not for everyone. Of course not, or it would be a universal ideology rather than an expression of a particular people! Genuine nationalism presupposes pluralism. Different strokes for different folks.
Hoosier nationalism is, for instance, pretty different from West Coast White Nationalism. For one thing, Hoosier Nation was written when Matt Parrott’s local Hoosier Nation group was affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens. They have since gone off on their own, but I imagine they still subscribe to the CofCC principles stated in the Conclusion. The first of these principles is “We believe the United States is a Christian country.” That comes before the principle, “We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people.”
Giving the preservation of Christianity priority over, or even parity with, fighting for white racial survival is a deal-breaker for me. There is nothing essentially white about Christianity; it is a universalistic creed; indeed the majority of Christians today are non-white.
Christianity is probably just a phase our race is going through, like geocentrism or Mithraism or wearing powdered wigs. There was a time when white people were not Christians, and there will probably come a day when Christianity is as dead as Mithraism.
I am happy to work with Christians who sincerely want to preserve our race, but I will rebuff any attempt to sneak in the idea that we are fighting for Christendom, which is a very different thing. (See my “The Christian Question in White Nationalism” and William Pierce’s “On Christianity.”)
In the end, however, perhaps Parrott’s pluralism shows us the way. There is not “one true way” of fighting for our cause. United, we can’t stand each other. But we are all about pluralism anyway, so whenever we disagree, we need to divide our camp. Let’s have Christian White Nationalism, pagan White Nationalism, and secular White Nationalism.
In the end, that is the path to real hegemony. Jews rule us because they divided their camp and colonized the whole political spectrum. When all candidates are Zionists, it does not matter which one we choose.
The path to power does not begin with White Nationalists squabbling among ourselves on the internet until we are all on the same page. Do we then plan to squabble with 200 million more whites to somehow get them on the same page too?
We will win when there is a version of White Nationalism for every religion, region, subculture, and shade on the political spectrum–when White Nationalism has colonized every “discursive space”–when white racial consciousness becomes the new common sense–so that no matter what options people choose, our race can never lose.
You can buy Hoosier Nation, or just read it online, here. I have also reprinted the chapter on “Hoosier Sovereignty” below.
11 Comments
I’ll buy it when you publish the book. Please print it through Counter-Currents.
I, too, am impressed with Matt’s urbanity, insight, sagacity, balance and dedication. He is a great asset to White America. As he ages and matures further, I suspect that he will only improve upon and increase his many current achievements.
We are lucky to have Matt and Greg. Keep up the good work.
Indeed, we are very lucky to have men like Matt and Greg on our side.
Jeff,
I do believe you can still get Matt’s book for free at: http://www.hoosiernation.us/
Hello all. This is going to be off topic for this particular item, but the comments are closed in the areas where the issue comes up.
First off, I’m a Desi. That means I’m South Asian. South Asia includes India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. Desi is what we South Asians call each other here in the USA. “Desh” meaning “land” or “country” – “desi” meaning “one from the Desh”.
Anyway, it is amusing to me as an “aryan” to see non-South Asians referring to themselves as “aryan” as well as to see terms like “Aryo-Roman” and “Indo-German” used.
What is meant by all of this?
My cousin who is currently studying engineering in Germany will become an “Indo-German” if she expatriots from India to Germany and undergoes naturalization and citizenship there, but I don’t think that is what is meant when this site refers to “Indo-German”.
Moreover, I am unaware of an ancient religio-ethnic-cultural connection between South Asia and the Roman Empire to warrant a term like “Aryo-Roman”.
As a South Asian/Desi/Aryan this is all very confusing to me.
Please explain.
The generally accepted anthropology is that there was a group of related tribes, generally thought to be associated with the R1a1 haplogroup, that inhabited West Asia before spilling over into India and Europe. Contemporary Indians, like contemporary Europeans, are fractionally descended from this tribe, which has a disproportionate cultural and linguistic impact on the regions they invaded.
It’s safe to assume they were White, not because I’m White, but because the regions of India with the highest rates of admixture with them are lighter than average and the places in Europe most closely associated with them genetically and linguistically (Lithuania is a leading candidate, here) are generally very light. Both of our civilizations were heavily impacted by these tribes, resulting in many similarities between Indian and European civilization.
Brownie says: “First off, I’m a Desi. That means I’m South Asian. South Asia includes India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh…
“My cousin who is currently studying engineering in Germany will become an “Indo-German” if she expatriots from India to Germany..As a South Asian/Desi/Aryan this is all very confusing to me. Please explain.”
—
It’s simple, Brownie. If your “Indo-German” cousin, or you and your other “Desi” kinsmen can’t make White babies, then you’re not White. Let us reduce it to Blood & Soil.
If you’re residing in traditional White living space, making non-White babies, we White preservationists recognize you as an invasive, exotic, competing subspecies, supplanting our type in our own living space. Environmentalists refer to this phenomenon in Nature as habitat succession.
Whites are not fighting this trend toward their own dispossession because they follow unnatural, Jew-spawned Xian principles such as love thine enemies. The unique White race is headed for extinction if it continues to follow such a dead-end philosophy that is not grounded in reality and Nature’s law of survival: loyalty to one’s own kind.
Dr. Pierce understood this and addressed Xianity properly as an ideology opposed to the long term best interests of our White race. He understood all too well that Desies and other non-Whites, as competing sub-species, are simply following Nature’s imperative to take what our type is willing to give up to them without resistance.
I’m confident that Matt is smart enough and honest enough that when his racial radicalization is more advanced he will put aside entirely his half-baked bowl of CoCC pabulum for the necessary red meat of Dr. Pierce’s biological racist world view.
The spiritual awakening that White peoples of the world so desperately need — the simple message of Blood & Soil — if we are to reverse the trend toward our mass suicide, is found in Dr. Pierce’s “On Christianity,” not in the Jewish Book of Fables.
Thank you for republishing that, Greg. Dr. Pierce, quoted there, being real:
—
“The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of this world is not man’s responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility.”
—
True or false?
I appreciate this excellent review and the supportive comments.
Brownie says: “Will, of course I’m not white. I’m Aryan. Aryans are brown South Asians. What I was questioning was the White misappropriation of our South Asian terminology – the word “aryan”. Hilter co-opted both our Swastik (an auspicious symbol) and the word “aryan” from one of our languages.
“Imitation is the greatest form of flattery but we South Asians find this mimiking of our culture laughable.”
—
I defer to your expertise in swastika origins, Brownie. I assume you are of the Hindu faith. Now there’s an old religion. We of European stock find some of your rituals with cow urine and cow dung pretty laughable. Some of us also find the Xian ritual of drinking the blood of Jesus in symbolic “holy” communion laughable, as well. Realists find silly superstitious rites sill, that’s all. Nothing personal.
As for the word Aryan, it derives from Sanskrit, meaning from noble birth. Lots of folks like to claim they are Aryans, from noble-thinking Whites to noble-thinking brown south Asians.
Germany’s Third Reich really established your ancient sun sign symbol into world consciousness better than any other civilization did before them. Too bad the Reich was vanquished by the Democratic/Bolshevist Allies, or the swazi might be seen more today as you see it: a love symbol rather than one of “hate.” If it weren’t for you Hindus, Jew-controlled Europe may have banned your ancient symbol altogether from the continent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6269627.stm
I heard recently that more than half of engineering students at U.S. universities now are foreigners. That’s another spooky milepost along the path to extinction of Whites, when they don’t put the interests of their own kin first. It makes me wonder if the asylum laws that were imposed on Germany by the victors post-WWII had anything to do with your Desi cousin attending engineering school in Germany. I’d think Germany, otherwise, would easily be able to fill it’s engineering school slots with Germans before training aliens, Aryan or otherwise, from developing nations.
Blood & Soil, Brownie. That’s what WWII was about, not swastikas, not the word Aryan nor evil Nazi bogeymen. I found the following old letter to the editor of Dr. William Pierce’s NATIONAL VANGUARD magazine, along with his editorial comments, which addresses your comments here at C-C to some degree. It’s a rainy day and I don’t mind spending the time to transcribe this piece from 26 years ago. It’s the sort of plain, sober writing about race and religion and our world, post-WWII, that fellow White people would still do well to read. I apologize for the length, but hope other C-C readers will copy and propagate:
—
From: NV No. 103, Jan-Feb. 1985
“No” to Socialism
I read the article in Issue No. 102 by William Simpson twice. I’ve read all of his articles very carefully since you first began printing them, and I am greatly impressed by his conclusions.
I was raised in a Christian home. Both my parents were very religious, and I started reading the Bible, at my mother’s urging, when I was 12 years old. From the beginning I had some doubts about both the Old Testament and the New Testament, and ever since then I’ve had struggles with myself about the Bible’s teachings.
After reading William Simpson’s articles in NATIONAL VANGUARD I have come to agree with him that Christianity is not a suitable religion for the Germanic peoples. It is leading our nation to destruction. Our civilization is being wrecked by Biblical doctrines and the fuzzy thinking of church leaders. Their acceptance of all the inferior races into America has convinced me of this. Jesus’s own teachings are partly responsible.
What I cannot accept in NATIONAL VANGUARD, however, is your affinity for Hitler and his National Socialism. I detest any socialism, national or otherwise. I do not believe that it is necessary to establish a socialistic government in Washington in order to break the Zionist hold over our politicians and rid ourselves of the international pests. Do you agree?
C.L.C.
Van Buren, AR
—
Editor’s Reply:
The Second World War was the great watershed in the collapse of the West. Had any major Western nation — in particular, Britain, France, or America — had the integrity to resist the Jews and avoid being drawn into their worldwide conspiracy against Germany, there would have been no world war, but only a war between National Socialist Germany and the Marxist Soviet Union. Germany would have won, Marxism would have been eradicated, and it would have been the beginning of the end for the Jews everywhere.
Instead, Western men were persuaded by their bought politicians, their Judeo-Christian priests, and the Jewish manipulators of public opinion in their midst to take up arms against their German brothers in an unholy crusade to eradicate National Socialism, so that the Jews and the Marxist cancer they had unleashed on the world could survive. Before the Second World War the West was still viable; afterward it was not.
The catastrophe of 1945, with the triumph of the Jew and his allies, made inevitable the opening up of the immigration floodgates for non-Whites into Britain and the United States; the destruction of American White public schools; the enactment of laws curtailing White freedom of association and the rights of White employers and renters (and with them the rights of White employees and tenants); the rise of feminism, homosexuality, and drug use; the breakdown of the traditional family structure; a soaring miscegenation rate; and the displacement of healthy White art, music, literature and drama by a Judeo-democratic-Hollywood ‘schlock’ culture. It also led to the metastasis of the Marxist cancer throughout huge areas of Europe and the rise of malignant Zionist power in Palestine — a power which surely would be the instigator of the Third World War.
It behooves those of us who still hope that enough healthy genes for a new beginning can be salvaged from the coming chaos, therefore, to understand everything we can about the Second World War; about its preeminent personality, Adolf Hitler; and about his ideology, National Socialism, from the eradication of which logically followed the evils briefly accounted above. That’s why NATIONAL VANGUARD often has articles on these subjects and will do so in the future.
As for the “socialism” in National Socialism, don’t let yourself be deceived by its enemies, among whom are the adherents of the Judeo-capitalists New Right [aka neo-CONs]; it certainly has nothing to do with the Semitic socoalism Marx and his kinsmen peddled. The first slogan of Hitler’s National Socialists was: “The common interest before self-interest!” They believed that every German, whether a factory owner or a janitor, should put the interests of his nation and his race ahead of his personal interests. That was really what they meant by the “socialism” in National Socialism.
They also believed that it was the responsibility of the nation’s leaders to concern themselves with the physical health of every member of the nation — not to cater to special-interest groups or to win popularity contests with the fickle and easily swayed masses.
These beliefs determined the racial, economic, and educational policies of Hitler’s government. That government was “socialist,” in that it devoted much of its efforts to improving the economic welfare of working-class and middle-class Germans, as well as the racial quality and racial consciousness of the whole nation. But it did not attempt to enforce any sort of artificial “equality” on its citizens, either of status or income. And it did not discourage the entrepreneurial activities of individual Germans, so long as those activities were not harmful to national interests. Private property not only remained sacrosanct in National Socialist Germany, but the government instituted new policies to enable small farmers to avoid losing their land to moneylenders.
Whether that is “socialism,” or not, NATIONAL VANGUARD certainly is not against it. To go further: We will not break the Zionist hold on America until White Americans have made a conscious decision to put their common racial interests ahead of their private interests.
—
Will Williams transcribed the letter to the editor — “No ” to Socialism — and Dr. Pierce’s reply from NV No. 103, Jan-Feb. 1985…
—
Though no one at C-C commented on this, Smoky picked up on it and has launched a lively discussion here: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=125299
Some Marxian socialist who answers to “Hudson” is not holding up well there with his attacks against the late Dr. Pierce. Fred Streed, who is both executor of Dr. Pierce’s estate and was the man Dr. Pierce appointed as President of the National Alliance Board of Directors, is a more-than-able, inspired spokesman for the Piercean POV.
We east Tennessee hillbillys are flattered, BTW, that Matt chose Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone as frontier heroes for his Hoosier Nation.
Interestingly, while Brownie and I are on the subject of Aryans, in this same old issue of NATIONAL VANGUARD (No. 103) is the first of three installments of Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s 1905 booklet ‘Arische Weltanschaung’ — translation: The Aryan World View — published for the first time in English. From HSC’s Foreword in that piece:
“The title, ”The Aryan World View’ is not without its faults. ‘Indo-Aryan’ or, in any event ‘Ancient Aryan’ would have been a more exact designation. But the publisher and the author were afraid to dishearten with an unusual and learned-sounding term just those readers whose interest they most wished to gain. It is well to remark in this place that ‘Aryan’ in this little book is not used in the sense of a problematical original race — a sense much attacked and difficult to define precisely — but in the ‘sensu proprio,’ which is to say, is the name for that people which some thousands years ago descended from the Central Asian high plateau into the valleys of the Indus and Ganges and there for a long period of time, through strict caste laws kept themselves pure from mixture with the alien races. This people called itself the People of the Aryans, that is of the Nobles or Lords.”
Vienna: January 1905
Houston Stewart Chamberlain
—
Mr. Chamberlain, the son-in-law of Richard Wagner, met Mr. Hitler in 1924, when AH was 34 years old. They probably discussed Aryanism. Mr. C. wrote several articles about Mr. H. in which he spoke favorably of him, writing that he found the future German Leader to be a reasonable man.
“When the truth lies outside the realm of understanding, no words can be found for it.” -Mahabharata (quoted under the title of the article)