Counter-Currents
Russell Maguire, The American Mercury, & Racially-Conscious Conservatism
Andrew Hamilton
Russell Maguire
4,541 words
Russell Maguire was an anti-Jewish, pro-white, multimillionaire businessman active in American conservative circles in the 1950s and ’60s, primarily through the publication of the well-known American Mercury magazine.
In 1956 Maguire hired future American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell “at a handsome salary” to promote his magazine, just as William F. Buckley of National Review had done the year before. Rockwell had a background in advertising, marketing, and promotion. He did not come out as a Nazi until 1958.
Maguire was one of several wealthy right-wingers Rockwell worked for in rapid succession between 1955 and 1958: William Buckley, Robert Snowden, “a wealthy plantation owner” from Arkansas who headed Americans for Constitutional Action, DeWest Hooker (Rockwell worked with, not for, Hooker), Wallace Allen, an Atlanta, Georgia ad man, and 39-year-old heir Harold N. Arrowsmith of Baltimore, Maryland.
Rockwell praises only two of these men—highly—in his hard-hitting, engaging autobiography This Time the World (1963): Buckley and DeWest Hooker! He is quite contemptuous of the others.
Russell Maguire, in particular, is singled out for withering scorn. Was Rockwell’s unflattering portrayal of Maguire justified?
Maguire, Auto-Ordnance, and the Thompson Submachine Gun
Maguire owned the Auto-Ordnance Co., manufacturer of the famous Thompson Submachine Gun, or “Tommy Gun.” The gun was developed by former Army ordnance officer, Remington Arms Company Chief Engineer, and WWI brigadier general John Taliaferro Thompson. With the backing of Wall Street tycoon Thomas Fortune Ryan, who retained the largest block of stock, Thompson formed the Auto-Ordnance Co. of Bridgeport, Connecticut in 1916.
The Thompson Submachine Gun
The young company struggled throughout the 1920s and ’30s. Thompsons, often looted from small town police stations or obtained from unscrupulous dealers, were sometimes used by gangsters. The guns could legally be sold to anyone on the open market, though the company pressured dealers to sell only to law-abiding citizens.
John Dillinger and Charles “Pretty Boy” Floyd used Thompsons, as did Al Capone’s mob in the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929. Hollywood movies also made the guns iconic.
Of course, most of the firearms were used by the police, Coast Guard, and other purchasers for legitimate purposes.
Thomas Fortune Ryan’s death in 1928 triggered a decade-long battle between Ryan’s heirs, who wanted to liquidate the privately-held firm, and John Thompson’s son Marcellus, who wanted it to remain in business.
FBI Agents Practicing With Thompsons in Quantico, Virginia
In 1938, Thomas Ryan’s son Walter, A-O’s President, General Manager, Director, and major shareholder, received a cash offer for the family’s holdings from a Wall Street broker. The money would be raised through a public offering underwritten by a financier named (John) Russell Maguire, originally an oilman from Texas.
According to a website detailing the background of the company,
With little investigation, Maguire discovered that Auto-Ordnance was a very poor investment. It had a huge debt, a static inventory and just a few employees. But Maguire reckoned that Marcellus Thompson knew what he was talking about when he predicted that Europe was headed for a war that would create huge profits for arms manufacturers. So Maguire agreed to underwrite the stock offer.
The convoluted story of how Maguire obtained control of the struggling firm from Thomas Fortune Ryan’s son on the eve of WWII is described here.
Throughout [WWII], Auto-Ordnance made enormous profits on sales of the various models of the Tommy Gun. By 1944 combined sales of all orders for Thompsons totaled nearly $130,000,000, earning the company a net profit of some $14,845,000. But in February 1944, the Army took delivery of 2,091 Thompsons, its last order. The venerable Tommy Gun had been replaced by the cheap and ugly, but functional M3 and M3A1 Grease Gun.
Throughout the war, Thompsons were especially popular with specialized troops such as Rangers, Marine Raiders, armored and parachute units.
At war’s end, Auto-Ordnance was downsized to become simply the ordnance division of its parent company, Maguire Industries. The Bridgeport factory was stripped of its gun-making machinery and retrofitted to produce radios, record players, and other consumer goods that were in short supply and high demand. Everything related to Thompson production was crated up and placed into storage.
According to A-O’s website:
On March 15, 1944, a certificate of name change was filed in New York changing the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name to “Maguire Industries, Incorporated.” Auto-Ordnance became known as the Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries, although gun production was terminated as World War II ended. No Thompson guns were made after 1944.
A certificate of name change was filed in Connecticut on March 22, 1944 documenting the name change from Auto-Ordnance Corporation to “Maguire Industries, Inc.”
For failure to provide yearly corporate reports for the years 1949 and 1950, Connecticut terminated Maguire Industries, Inc. right to do business in that state on December 14, 1950.
Maguire Industries, Inc. changed their name to Components Corporation of America and registered the change with New York on March 14, 1961.
On December 31, 1981, Components Corporation of America was merged with CCA Holding, Inc. with CCA Holding surviving and then renamed itself Components Corporation of America.
According to Gerald L. K. Smith (quoted below), Russell Maguire died sometime before 1976. It has been difficult to piece together the story of Maguire’s life and political activism. Almost nothing has been written about the man. I don’t even know the dates of his birth or death.
It seems clear that Maguire was a sophisticated, capable man of the kind the WN movement needs. He does not readily fit Rockwell’s simplistic caricature of him. As head of A-O he had to deal extensively with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, as well as the military, under the auspices of the heavily Jewish Roosevelt Administration.
Early Activism
By 1950 Maguire, dissatisfied with the direction the country was heading, began to become politically active.
Maguire financially backed the distribution of the book The Iron Curtain Over America (1951) by John Beaty and supported Merwin K. Hart’s National Economic Council and Allen A. Zoll’s American Patriots, Inc., a group labeled “fascist” (and hence subversive) by the U.S. Attorney General. All of these men were accomplished individuals before being made “unrespectable” because of their political and racial views.
In 1952, Left-wing WASP Senator William Benton (D.-Conn.), co-founder of the Benton & Bowles advertising firm, publisher of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and sponsor of a resolution to expel Joseph McCarthy from the US Senate, was running for reelection. William Buckley and his brother-in-law L. Brent Bozell ran a series of anti-Benton newspaper ads in Connecticut that Benton blamed, in part, for his defeat. Buckley’s and Bozell’s ads were financed by Russell Maguire.
In the late 1950s Maguire donated $75,000 to Billy Graham for producing a film about the virtues of free enterprise.
The American Mercury
His major project, however, was the purchase of the venerable American Mercury magazine founded in 1924 by H. L. Mencken and his Jewish colleague George Jean Nathan with the financial backing of Jewish book publisher Alfred A. Knopf.
By 1950 the money-losing magazine had taken a conservative turn under the ownership of Clendenin J. Ryan, Jr. and the editorship of philo-Semitic, Negrophile author William Bradford Huie. (On Ryan’s colorful background as a spook see here, but note that the article is tagged as having “multiple issues.”) Clendenin Ryan was the grandson of Thomas Fortune Ryan, the original financier of Auto-Ordnance.
Ryan published three issues of the Mercury before selling the journal to editor Huie in February 1951.
Russell Maguire was by this time one of the magazine’s investors. Under Huie, many “Cold War liberal” Jewish authors (essentially, neoconservatives), including Gertrude Himmelfarb (Mrs. Irving Kristol, mother of William Kristol), were commissioned to write for the publication. Many of these Jewish writers continued to appear under Maguire, though in ever-diminishing numbers.
The magazine continued to struggle financially, and Maguire finally purchased it outright in August 1952. At the time, The American Mercury and The Freeman were the two most important right-wing publications of the day. The Mercury‘s circulation was 66,017, according to Time in 1955.
Maguire owned and operated the Mercury until he sold it in January 1961 to the Rev. Gerald B. Winrod, another Jewish bête noire. In 1966 the magazine was acquired by Liberty Lobby’s Willis Carto, who operated it as a quarterly until 1981.
Maguire’s stepdaughter Natasha worked as an executive for the magazine, serving as managing editor from 1954–58. (Maguire married a White Russian.)
Maguire’s American Mercury (1952–1961) evolved into a Reader’s Digest-style monthly carrying extremely short, easy-to-read articles about politics, economics, health, science, and other topics. The articles were pitched to a broad, popular audience of middle-class readers rather than to intellectuals.
As an example, in 1960 there were 12 issues published with 439 articles and 1,970 pages. The February issue contained 41 articles in 162 pp., averaging 4 short pages per article.
Much of the content was free enterprise-, anti-Communist-, and anti-Zionist- oriented. Comparing articles from Huie’s Mercury to those from Maguire’s gives the impression of faster-paced, lighter, but also more militant fare under the latter.
For example, Robert Patterson’s “The Tongs of San Francisco: New Rackets in Old Chinatown” (February 1952), is meatier than anything published by Maguire. The same can be said, in a sense, of Calder Willingham’s “Television: Giant in the Living Room.” However, due to editorial or self-imposed authorial constraints, “Television” ultimately fails to deliver. Huie’s Mercury, hobbled by an enormous burden of familiar conservative social and intellectual taboos (refusal to explore anything verging on the politically incorrect), never lives up to its potential.
Major General Charles A. Willoughby, Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s Chief of Intelligence in WWII and Korea, was the Mercury‘s military editor and a frequent contributor. Born in Germany under a different name, he immigrated to the US in 1910 and enlisted in the US Army.
Harold Lord Varney was the magazine’s political editor.
Russell Maguire contributed a monthly feature, “In the Mercury‘s Opinion.”
Anti-Communism was a major theme of the magazine. Anti-Communist Sephardic Jew Ralph de Toledano wrote on the topic, as did famous science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein (“Pravda Means Truth,” Oct. 1960), among others.
Familiar anti-Communist Christian contributors included Carl McIntire, Billy James Hargis, and Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Billy Graham was featured on the cover of the June 1957 issue, which contained a profile about him.
An anti-Zionist article, “Eichmann and His Bitter Harvest of Hate: Voices of all faiths protest the act of kidnapping” (Sept. 1960), criticized the Mossad’s illegal kidnapping of former German functionary Adolf Eichmann from Argentina to Israel, where he was executed, by using a series of quotations from prominent Jewish individuals and organizations who condemned the action.
However, a boxed editorial statement by the magazine at the end of the article states:
The Zionists are quick to label any who expose them as “hate-mongers.” They hypocritically prattle in selfrighteous [sic] tones for “peace through justice” and “peace through law.” The Zionists are hoist on their own petard. They have defied every rule of justice laid down by God or man. They have violated every international law on the books.
Articles about monetary policy by C. H. Douglas, US Rep. and Federal Reserve foe Wright Patman (D.-Tex.), and others appeared.
Diplomatic historian Charles Callan Tansill (Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy 1933- 1941 [1952]) wrote for the Mercury, as did Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Virginius Dabney (“If the South Had Won the War,” February 1956).
Lebanese-American attorney Ralph Nader, before he was famous, contributed “Business Is Deserting America” (March 1960), which Jews and Leftists used against him in the presidential campaign of 2000, insinuating he was anti-Semitic. (Another early sign of political incorrectness: the young Nader published an article in the October 1962 issue of the libertarian magazine The Freeman.)
Under Maguire’s auspices, Jewish power was highlighted but, with the exception of Zionism, only indirectly. Articles frequently mentioned the names of powerful Jews as key players in social affairs, but without identifying them as Jews—a technique Revilo Oliver, a Mercury contributor, resorted to in his early days in the forlorn hope that white readers could somehow divine or guess which individuals were Jews and which were not. Unfortunately, this is an ineffective tactic. It renders meaningless common accusations of “anti-Semitism” against the Mercury.
It was not that the magazine was explicitly anti-Semitic. Rather, the Jews and repressive government agencies knew from violations of privacy rights that Maguire and many of his contributors were de facto anti-Semites, and attacked them viciously for that reason.
As a result, Maguire’s politically and racially harmless magazine (Rockwell correctly called it “non-anti-Semitic”) was, and still is, hyperbolically assailed as an emanation of “the fever swamps of anti-Semitism” and “the nether worlds of National Socialism.” It was routinely pilloried as “extremist,” “Jew-baiting,” “White Supremacist,” and “pro-fascist.”
In 1988, John Judis, founder of Socialist Revolution and author of an admiring biography of William Buckley, histrionically accused Maguire of “endorsing the theory of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world promulgated by the fraudulent Protocols of Zion.”
White nationalists should perhaps copy the vocabulary of violent invective and hatred routinely spewed by their deadly enemies. Even the wildest, most irresponsible vituperation and lies clearly do not hurt one’s cause. It is a mistake to worry about tone or rhetoric. The more violent and crazy the language, the better. The lowest common denominator triumphs in Jewish-communist cultural warfare.
William Buckley early became the point man for expelling Maguire and the Mercury from his newly-invented “responsible [i.e., irresponsible] conservatism.” The “suggestion” for this first of many Buckley-led Jewish purges originated with conservative Morrie Ryskind, Hollywood screenwriter for the Marx brothers, and China Lobby honcho Alfred Kohlberg, a financial backer of National Review. Both were Jews.
Thus, in 1959 Buckley warned his editors and writers in a memorandum to disassociate themselves from Maguire and the Mercury. Within National Review, ex-Trotskyite James Burnham and ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers applauded Buckley’s action. Outside, US Senator Styles Bridges (R.-N.H.) and conservative radio commentator Fulton Lewis, Jr. obediently detached themselves from their erstwhile publisher. (Lewis had even been featured on the cover of the July 1957 issue of the magazine.)
Did George Lincoln Rockwell & DeWest Hooker Drive Russell Maguire Away From Racially-Conscious Conservatism?
Chapter 9 of George Lincoln Rockwell’s This Time the World contains the Commander’s scathing account of his 1956–57 association with Maguire and lavish praise for apparent millionaire DeWest Hooker. Unfortunately, we have only Rockwell’s account to go by, and so must tread carefully.
Rockwell, who had sold Maguire an article about U.S. follies in Iceland, arranged for an appointment with the millionaire in the latter’s lavish Park Lane apartment in New York City.
Meeting the publisher for the first time, Rockwell “was happy and relieved to find him the opposite of my recent employer in Memphis” (Robert Snowden). Maguire
was small, intelligent, unassuming and seemed utterly dedicated to the cause of America and the White Race. We talked over the “movement,” as patriotic leaders inevitably do upon meeting, and agreed that what was needed was what he called a “hard-core.” I told him I thought eventually we would need a Nazi Party, and he agreed, but said it would have to be done with extreme secrecy. . . . I went along with that, too.
Maguire offered to place Rockwell on the payroll in his Fifth Avenue offices “at a handsome salary” to promote the Mercury and, ostensibly, “begin quietly setting up the ‘hard-core’ he wanted.”
Impatient with office politics, Rockwell began “busily searching out and rounding up the talent for Maguire’s ‘hard-core.’ In the process, I came across a man named DeWest Hooker,” who made an enormously favorable impression upon Rockwell. In a key passage he writes,
I discovered Hooker hated Maguire [emphasis added], for whom I was working. Maguire, he said, was rabid only on one thing, the Mercury, his pet project — and the hell with the cause itself. He told me that Maguire was utterly ruthless financially and would weasel out of any deal he could, if it cost him money. He even claimed that Maguire had tried to hire him, Bill Evans and another man to kill key Jews at $10,000 a head, but that he became so difficult to pin down on the money question, they felt he would never pay. In fact, some of the boys wanted to shoot Maguire instead. Hooker said Maguire would talk forever about his ‘hard-core’, but would never do anything.
“Hooker,” Rockwell believed, “has the genius which is desperately needed by the dead right-wing, and I felt sure I could get Maguire to back him eventually as a leader. . . . Finally, Maguire agreed to a secret meeting between Hooker, himself, Fred Willis (Maguire’s oldest and best friend), and myself at Maguire’s Park Lane apartment. . . . Hooker put his full faith into the effort . . . Although it irritated him and went against his nature, I even got Hooker worked up to the point where he called Maguire ‘Sir,’ as I did.”
We presented a complete plan for a slow, secret Nazi build-up under Hooker throughout the U.S.A. using the personnel and leaders already so well known to Hooker, a front group with an “almost” Nazi flavor and — financing by Maguire. Eventually, we felt that most of the other rich men would help, if they could see something first. Maguire seemed entranced with everything we presented. Hooker wanted to give him the complete list of ADL and other Jewish agents, plus the evaluations of all right-wing leaders, but I had suggested holding off until we got some kind of commitment. This tactic got results.
“All right!” said Maguire, with the air of a man suddenly decided on an immense step. “I’ll back it! The country doesn’t have five years left! We’ve simply got to do it! I’ll put in a thousand dollars for the first year!”
Rockwell states that he, Hooker, and Willis were aghast, filled with righteous indignation over this paltry offer. How niggardly!
Yet, if DeWest Hooker was a multimillionaire as Rockwell claimed, why couldn’t he cough up the dough himself? Besides being fabulously wealthy, “Hooker was a Nazi! He was not a ‘patriot’ or a ‘right-winger’ or a ‘conservative,’ but a fighting, tough, all-out-Nazi”—the “nearest thing to a Nazi since the Bund.”
It is difficult to know what to make of Rockwell’s story in terms of its reliability. It is possible that Maguire said things, or made commitments, he later regretted.
After the meeting, Rockwell and Hooker went to the library of Hooker’s club (Cornell), around the corner. Hooker “admitted that I had had more success than anybody so far with Maguire, just by getting on the payroll and arranging the meeting. Maguire, he pointed out, usually refused to see more than one person at a time, to avoid witnesses.”
It would have been extremely imprudent for Russell Maguire to secretly finance a militant, “hard-core” organization promoted to him by two newcomers he hardly knew. Completely outlandish is the claim that he had attempted to hire Hooker and other dubious characters “to kill key Jews at $10,000 a head.”
Maguire was continually worried that Jews, and probably the government, were trying to frame him. His wariness was justified. An article in the January 1960 issue of The American Mercury noted:
Up to the present the vengeance of the world conquerors has been swift and effective. No other U. S. racial minority has its own secret police organization operating on a nationwide basis to spy and report on other American citizens, as does the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, a federally tax-exempt, multi-million dollar operation conducted solely in behalf of the largest American fraternal order for Jews only.
Think about it in today’s terms. Even militant activists sternly warn their followers to assume that anyone promoting violence is a plant working for the Jews or government. As an example, radio host Hal Turner, who did advocate violence, turned out to be a highly-paid informant.
The situation was essentially the same in 1956, and knowledgeable men like Maguire knew it. They had no more room for maneuver than we do. They were not Jews who could blithely engage in illegal gunrunning for Israel, Communism, domestic terrorism, widespread surveillance of racial enemies, and the suppression of speech and association by American citizens.
There is no big mystery about why we’re teetering on the brink of biological and cultural extinction. A highly sophisticated, pervasive apparatus of mass propaganda and repression, fueled by hatred, has made even token resistance to genocide impossible for more than half a century. Only controlled opposition like Buckley’s “succeeds.”
Cold Feet
At any rate, Maguire got cold feet. Perhaps it dawned on him that his collaborators had different plans than he did. His response seems more or less consistent with such a view. Or possibly he was a “coward” as Rockwell contends. It is impossible to know.
But sometime between Maguire’s purchase of the Mercury in late 1952, when Jewish Cold War liberals began slipping away from the magazine, and Buckley’s Jewish-instigated edict of 1959, the ADL had drawn a bead on Maguire, and he knew it. In his 1960 autobiography, Rockwell noted that “recently the New York papers blasted [Maguire] at the instigation of the ADL for being ‘anti-Semitic.'”
In a private meeting in the Mercury‘s offices described by Rockwell — casting Maguire, unsurprisingly, in an unflattering light — Rockwell tendered his resignation from the magazine, and it was accepted. Maguire did subsequently buy and publish two additional articles by Rockwell.
At the end of his chapter about Russell Maguire and DeWest Hooker, Rockwell devotes four pages to half-defiantly and half-defensively justifying his behavior:
Many right-wingers are sincerely concerned, I know, about my battles with men such as Maguire, Snowden, et al. and my revelations of what they really are. “They are doing good,” I am told, “why not let them go about their business their own way. They are helping. Don’t hurt them.”
I maintain that they are only giving the appearance of helping. They are the ones who are actually hurting. . . .
No, America, it is not wicked to expose and attack Maguire and his ilk.
He goes on to say that it was his “naked purpose” to drive the right-wing together by exploiting the goodwill or naïveté of patriots like Maguire by whatever means were necessary. This position is, in fact, very Hitler-like.
I have problems with it, however. Russell Maguire was anti-Jewish—the criterion by which one determines if someone is at least in the right ballpark. The white race will not survive if white nationalists can’t get this one simple thing right.
Yet Rockwell lavishly praised William F. Buckley and the National Review crowd (among whom, he acknowledged, were several Jews)—deadly enemies of our race and human freedom from the very beginning.
He also retained unbounded faith in J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, with whom he remained in constant contact, informing the agency about his followers and other matters. He was every bit as worried as Russell Maguire that he might be framed for something he did not do. Biographer Schmaltz calls him “paranoid,” which he was not, but notes that his love for the FBI was not a two-way affair like he assumed.
On top of this, he states that
DeWest Hooker is now working in Italy with a bottling company. He is disgusted and discouraged. His experiences with Maguire and the others . . . have driven him back to the arms of the Jews and their money. We can’t afford this, Americans! . . . Hooker is one of the men who could have led fighting young men, as I am, in a fight to save America! The “nice” people who back up such “wake up America” “patriots” as Maguire drove a great White leader into the arms of the Jew money-masters!
Maguire “drove” the wealthy, “fighting, tough, all-out Nazi” Hooker “back into the arms of the Jews and their money”? Besides being false, this doesn’t even make sense.
Rockwell’s bile against Russell Maguire, especially in light of his truckling to Buckley and the FBI, is completely unwarranted. Nor do I think that his faith in DeWest Hooker was well-placed. These are not small errors in judgment.
Gerald L. K. Smith’s Meeting With Maguire
Gerald L. K. Smith rose to national prominence as a top aide to Gov. Huey P. Long (D.-La.), and subsequently won renown as an anti-Jewish crusader and publisher of the magazine The Cross and the Flag.
After Smith’s death in 1976 his widow edited personal recollections he’d jotted down over the years into a book, Besieged Patriot: Autobiographical episodes exposing Communism, Traitorism and Zionism from the life of Gerald L. K. Smith (Eureka Springs, Ark.: Christian Nationalist Crusade, 1978). The book contains a short section on Russell Maguire (pp. 309–10).
Smith states that he possessed bound volumes of The American Mercury published during Maguire’s tenure. “They are historic and dynamic because they contain articles which practically no one outside of myself had the courage to publish.”
Maguire, an admirer of Smith’s, invited the latter to his suite at New York’s Waldorf-Astoria Hotel when Smith was in town, evidently in the late 1950s or early 1960s, shortly before his disposal of the Mercury in 1961.
He expressed his great admiration for me and expressed his desire to cooperate with me, but I could see that he was very nervous. He seemed to think that if he happened to be identified with me in the public press that it would ruin him. I realized that this man was suffering from one of the most frustrating circumstances that a man can experience; namely, to know the truth and love the truth, and still be afraid to espouse it completely and openly. He knew the Jewish question, but he was frightened to death of the Jews.
According to Smith, Maguire disappeared from the American scene after being threatened by a potential blackmailer—a blackmailer who, though unnamed by Smith, and probably unknown to him, sounds suspiciously familiar.
One day Mr. Maguire was called on by an enigmatic character who exploited Mr. Maguire’s intense concern for the destiny of America. He tricked Mr. Maguire into saying some extreme things, and then later threatened to blackmail him and tell the world what Mr. Maguire had tried to hire him to do. The report doubtless would have been false, but inasmuch as the individual who threatened the blackmail came when Mr. Maguire had no witnesses to the conference, it created a great concern. Mr. Maguire disappeared from the public scene and moved to a Caribbean island, and later died in obscurity. [Emphasis added]
The date fits. Russell Maguire vanished from the political scene with the sale of the Mercury in January 1961.
A Final Thought
For nearly a century, white revolution of necessity has remained a state of mind—the absolute rejection of evil, genocide, communism.
The failure of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of now-forgotten rebels to turn the tide is not the appropriate criterion of judgment. In genocidal, totalitarian states, it is the existential act of psychological and spiritual rebellion that counts.
You cannot expect people to achieve the impossible, but you can demand that they do what they are obligated to do—and certainly that they refrain from trafficking with the enemy, betraying their fellows, or otherwise doing harm.
Applying these standards, I regard anti-Jewish whites like Maguire as winners whether or not, from some Olympian perspective, they can be viewed with the benefit of perfect hindsight as smart or dumb, adept or “inept.” In my view, they all “succeeded” because they rebelled when others would not.
It is the enemies of mankind like William F. Buckley, Jr. and J. Edgar Hoover who deserve the severest opprobrium; Russell Maguire does not.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
26 comments
Good research.
The one issue of Mercury I have, from 1972, states it was published in association with Washington Observer Newsletter, and since 1966 incorporated Western Destiny, Folk, and Northern World. I assume this means Mercury was published by Willis Carto (?). The contributing editors included luminaries such as Austin App, Henry Garrett, Joseph P Kamp, Robert Kuttner, Elmer Pendell, Ralph Townsend et al.
Yes, Willis Carto published the Mercury from 1966 until he closed it in, I believe, 1981. I think it was a quarterly rather than a monthly for most, if not all, of that period.
I had an opportunity to examine several issues of Carto’s Mercury in the stacks at a university library about two decades ago, and photocopied some articles from them.
Robert E. Kuttner edited an excellent book about race that I own: Race and Modern Science: A Collection of Essays by Biologists, Anthropologists, Sociologists and Psychologists (New York: Social Science Press, 1967). It is still very useful.
Wilmot Robertson, subsequently the author of The Dispossessed Majority and editor of the pathbreaking Instauration magazine, also contributed articles to Carto’s Mercury, as did Revilo Oliver.
This is an extremely interesting article. By coincidence, its conclusion raises a question I raised in a comment I posted a short while ago, namely what do we mean by “solutions” and “success”? Andrew Hamilton is quite right that it is inappropriate to judge White nationalists of the past by the standard of absolute success. Virtue should not be conflated with success, but virtue is required for success.
In Men Among the Ruins, Julius Evola wrote:
“it is men who make or undo history, if given the opportunity. We must be opposed to any consecration and ‘rationalization’ of the status quo and must deny any acknowledgment of the forces or currents that have assumed power. We should recall that the anathema of being ‘antihistorical’ and ‘outside of history’ is cast against those who still remember the way things were before and who call subversion by its name, instead of conforming to the processes that are precipitating the world’s decline.
“Having made this clear, man is restored to a fundamental freedom of movement . . . Having overcome all historicism, we are rid of both the idea that the past is something that mechanically determines the present and the concept of a teleological, evolutionary, and transcendental law that, for all practical purposes, leads us back to determinism. Then, every historical factor will appear to have a conditioning role, but never a determining role. The possibility of an active attitude toward the past will be safeguarded, especially the possibility to uphold everything that is inspired by super-temporal values.”
Men who think and act in this spirit possess far more lucidity, integrity, dignity, and autonomy than those who accept the status quo. I consider this a good starting point.
There must have been some specific AM articles about which Buckley at least feigned concern.
Does anyone know which ones they were?
I believe it is this one http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury-1959jan-00110
Which was written by Maguire. There’s a few references to Zionism, the Rothschilds, but if if my memory serves me correct, after the Mercury published the letter Buckley wrote about the Mercury and made it clear his sole problem was their conspiracy theorizing, and did not accuse them of anti-Semitism.
Do not forget that National Review was during the early days criticized the Eichmann prosecution, the ADL and Zionism. See David Gordon’s expose in the Rockwell Rothbard Report (The precursor to Lewrockwell.com http://www.unz.org/Pub/RothbardRockwellReport-1992apr-00001 ), to say nothing of its support of segregation.
It is only after Buckley began kissing up to the neconservatives that he described it as going after the anti-Semites.
Rockwell thought Maguire is certainly making a few winks and nods.
I realized that this man was suffering from one of the most frustrating circumstances that a man can experience; namely, to know the truth and love the truth, and still be afraid to espouse it completely and openly. He knew the Jewish question, but he was frightened to death of the Jews.
It is almost comical reading some of this stuff. First off, it was an interesting piece of Americana but in another sense reading about the powerful millionaire who retired to a Caribbean island because he was frightened to death of the Jews is reminiscent of the powerful disciples who hid in the upper room (John 20:19) for fear of the Jews . You would almost think that we were reliving the battles of 2,000 years ago. We may speak a different language and live in a different part of the world but we still sing the same old song. It seems to me that our Achilles heel in this titanic struggle for truth is our poor understanding of our Holy Books and the alienation of the Christian people. Nothing sadder than a people separated from it’s God – how did they do that?
This is a very interesting article.
“It is the existential act of psychological and spiritual rebellion that counts” is a phrase that stands out for me.
What I do not understand is the inability to recognize a kindred spirit of rebellion or find common ground on which to base trust which of course runs the risk of betrayal. Is it paranoia which is probably justified given the circumstances? Individual ambition versus a collective goal? Personal animosities?
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, …….
the best lack all conviction, while the worst
are full of passionate intensity.
Good old Yeats. I knew there was a poem there. (I had to work for it)
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Andrew Hamilton in blockquote:
The Great Errors always start at the beginning. “White revolution” – using those terms very generously – has fallen short of fulfilling even the most basic fundamentals of any sort of social transformation.
They ALWAYS went to kick Lucy’s Football, playing their Game by their Rules. An all too convenient “Enemy of the Week” was fabricated as necessary, and thousands of little puppies pretended to bark like big dogs, even as they chased their puppy tails, yapping furiously, and onyly serving to exhaust themselves.
Who’s the Enemy of the Week? The “INSIDERS,” the Bilderbergers, the Trilateralists, the Godless Communists – who we actively supported to the point of feeding them when starvation threatened – the Civil Rights Advocates, the International Republicans, Eisenhower, you name it.
When you get tired of breaking your hand hitting the wall while shadow-boxing, give us a call.
Their actions do not rise to level of a personal coup d’etat, much less rebellion. No, they were pointed in one direction, and ran as hard as they could after the will-o’-the-wisp of the week.
Think of all of the thousands of hours – and dollars – spent criticizing the International Bankers, the INSIDERS, you name it. What did it accomplish?
It accomplished what it was supposed to do – tire the puppies out chasing their tale, and letting them yap their heads off.
No, that defines The Goal as the absence of knowingly doing wrong. That Rule applies to invertebrates everywhere, spineless jellyfish floating along helplessly pretty much being a good example.
A proper Goal would be the presence of a positive, of actively trying to be better at doing what is right, and what doing works.
Rockwell fell for the scam as so many others did, and who can blame him?
George Lincoln Rockwell in blockquote:
The triumph of hope over experience, let’s all admit that Hooker was no more “driven into the arms of the Jews and their money” – where’s all this money he was supposed to have? “Send me money or I will turn to the Jews!” – than he was the man “who could have led fighting young men.”
After all, where was his Nationalist Youth Movement?
Off with all the rest of these “fighting young men,” off in a meadow, fast asleep.
We really should replace the statements of Hooker, et. al., with subscriptions to the Disney Channel. At least Disney’s fairy tales are honestly defined as fairy tales, the works of fiction that they are. Hooker’s, and so many other “White nationalists,” aren’t, and there’s a reason for that.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Many of the people you’re alluding to, who employed (or employ) the kind of terminology you mention—notably Robert Welch and the John Birch Society—are not anti-Jewish or pro-white. They could care less about white genocide. They fall into the same category as Buckley as far as race goes.
The Birch Society, in addition to recruiting as many Jews as it could (not many, but they were there–e.g., Alan Stang), issued a pamphlet to its members called The Neutralizers, written by Birch leader Robert Welch. It instructed the membership that anyone who broached the Jewish question or the race issue was an undesirable, probably an agent of “The Insiders” out to destroy the Society. If the transgressor refused to shape up, he was expelled.
Tom Metzger, who was head of a JBS chapter for something like 8 years, mentioned in his autobiography that he expelled a couple of women because they kept raising the Jewish question.
That is not the same as Maguire.
Also, you must keep in mind that George Lincoln Rockwell, for all his virtues (and he had many), kept in constant touch with the FBI. That was a major reason Ed Fields of The Thunderbolt/The Truth At Last refused to have anything to do with him.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Thank you for your considered response. I have a few quick thoughts.
Andrew Hamilton in blockquote:
These are perfect examples of how “Conservatism” was used to co-opt the race Issue from being a tool for political organization. I well suspect This Is Not By Accident.
That seems to have been the trap Dr. Revilo Oliver fell into. No one could directly confront him on these issues, so the passive aggression techniques of making him an UnPerson did their work on him.
Again, we see the Controlled Opposition in action.
The FBI of Rockwell’s day was sen as the only nationally organized force dealing with those who would subvert the country. Keeping the FBI informed demonstrated Rockwell had the gravitas to deal with political issues as an Adult, knowing that, if they so chose, the FBI could infiltrate any organization, read their correspondence and tap their phones, anyway.
As Harold Covington said, “Don’t kid yourself. They know who we are, where we live, and what we do. Might as well do something you, and those who come after you, will be proud of.”
Thank you for your considered response.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
It seems that George Lincoln Rockwell was not alone in failing to clearly recognise the FBI as an enemy and to respond accordingly. In There’s Something Happening Here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), David Cunningham writes (p. 158) that
“until COINTELPRO activities became public in the early 1970s, the FBI itself was almost always treated with respect in Klan publications. Various articles in The Fiery Cross viewed J. Edgar Hoover as the Klan’s ally in the battle against Communism and racial unrest, applauding the Director’s derisive statements about King and his refusal to ‘lower the Bureau’s standards’ by hiring black agents. Articles also routinely extolled Hoover as the nation’s leading crime fighter, citing Bureau statistics on rising crime rates and quotes from the Director’s speeches bemoaning the erosion of respect for local police. Often, Fiery Cross writers saw the Klan’s function as assisting a government busy ‘fighting black nationalists on one hand . . . and white anarchist youths on the other,’ and even went so far as to regularly refer to the Director as ‘the Honorable J. Edgar Hoover.'”
Cunningham also writes (pp. 164-165) that
“the Klan’s response to the FBI’s repressive onslaught was limited by its inability to understand the Bureau’s actions. The Klan’s peculiar orientation — highly patriotic, pro-law enforcement, strongly opposed to progressive change — precluded the sort of overarching anti-Establishment critique within which FBI harassment would be comprehensible and even expected. Ideally, Klan leaders claimed, a ‘truly American’ government should be on their side. Instead, in an attempt to explain the considerable slippage between a racially segregated ‘ideal’ America and the new integrated reality, they inevitably sought the refuge of conspiracy theories. These theories took on many guises, but almost all versions had a global Jewish actor engineering liberal policies to further an ultimate Zionist goal. The FBI’s place in these theories varied considerably; it was clear that there was no consensus about how to reconcile the Bureau’s esteemed crime- and Communist-busting reputation with its simultaneous infiltration and harassment of upstanding groups like the Klan. While Klan leaders . . . generally held Director Hoover in high regard, they also struggled to come to grips with the Bureau’s anti-Klan activities. In 1971 the Fiery Cross ran a five-part exposé of the FBI and CIA, painting Hoover as a ‘bureaucrat’ who often had to ‘swallow his pride and obey orders.'”
I intend to read Cunningham’s book carefully, and to pay particular attention to its typology of methods used by the FBI. We need to be politically conscious and security conscious. This means many things:
We need to accurately identify our enemies.
We need to count the police among our enemies on account of their leadership, their functions, and their loyalties. This has nothing to do with the “off the pigs!” mentality of the New Left or the “cop killer” mentality of Black thugs, and everything to do with a clear recognition of contemporary political realities. The law and law enforcement agencies are weapons in the hands of the state. The police motto “to protect and to serve” describes their relationship to the state, but not their relationship to us. We can only expect what Samuel Francis called “anarcho-tyranny.”
We need to see our task in revolutionary terms. The Judaized system cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed.
We need to properly understand the workings of our enemies and techniques they use against us.
We need to establish a culture which takes security seriously. What this means is something I intend to study. In these matters, I think it would be best to focus on the political, social, and educational aspects of security rather than its administrative or technological aspects. Although Bruce Schneier is a Jew, I might take some cues from his works on security, which appear to be quite interesting and useful. He clearly understands that people are both the weak link and the strong link of security.
Mr. Hamilton wrote: “There is no big mystery about why we’re teetering on the brink of biological and cultural extinction. A highly sophisticated, pervasive apparatus of mass propaganda and repression, fueled by hatred, has made even token resistance to genocide impossible for more than half a century. Only controlled opposition like Buckley’s ‘succeeds.'”
I fear you’ll answer this in the affirmative, Mr. Hamilton, but do you believe there was essentially nothing that we Whites could have done post-1945 to have saved ourselves? (I admit that I can’t think of anything realistic.) And now we see that so many of our former heroes were either less than that . . . or tragic failures. Have we been THAT under the control of our enemies?
If so, it speaks volumes about what we face now.
My working hypothesis is that Jews, and particularly Ashkenazi Jews, are racially dominant over whites.
In the absence of Jews, whites were racially dominant over blacks, Amerindians, or any other race they came into contact with—even supposedly higher IQ East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, etc.).
But once Jews achieved a certain demographic heft, and gained a toehold in our societies, they rolled over us as easily as we rolled over other races.
The dominance I’m talking about is biological, not technological.
It’s like the dog I owned when I was a boy. Any time he came into contact with strange dogs, regardless of breed, he would assume a fierce, menacing air and the other dog would immediately strike a submissive posture, frequently mewling at the same time. It was remarkable to witness. I never saw a single time when the situation was reversed.
My dog was the dominant dog. I have no idea why. He just was.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Jewish dominance is psychological rather than biological. As Arthur Keith remarked, the evolution of the Jews has centred on their minds, rather than their bodies. Given that Jews are a highly intelligent people, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they have applied their intelligence to develop forms of parasitism no less subtle, sophisticated, and devastating as that practiced by the ants Richard Dawkins discusses in The Selfish Gene:
“Parasites are not accustomed to exerting themselves if they can coerce a stand-in. My favourite character in Wilson’s The Insect Societies is Monomorium santschii.
“This species, over evolutionary time, has lost its worker caste altogether. The host workers do everything for their parasites, even the most terrible task of all. At the behest of the invading parasite queen, they actually perform the deed of murdering their own mother. The usurper doesn’t need to use her jaws. She uses mind-control.
“How she does it is a mystery; she probably employs a chemical, for ant nervous systems are generally highly attuned to them. If her weapon is indeed chemical, then it is as insidious a drug as any known to science.
“For think what it accomplishes. It floods the brain of the worker ant, grabs the reins of her muscles, woos her from deeply ingrained duties and turns her against her own mother. For ants, matricide is an act of special genetic madness and formidable indeed must be the drug that drives them to it. In the world of the extended phenotype, ask not how an animal’s behaviour benefits its genes; ask instead whose genes it is benefiting.”
In Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), Mike Hawkins writes (p. 197) of the views regarding the Jews that Georges Vacher de Lapouge expressed in L’Aryen, son rôle social (Paris: Albert Fontemoing, 1899):
“Lapouge described the Jews as an ethnic group rather than a zoological race — one founded upon religion and with a psychic identity forged over centuries of selection. They were everywhere the same: intelligent, ruthless, gifted money-makers, arrogant in success and servile in defeat, and congenitally odious, as evinced by their history of persecution, which antedated the birth of Christ by several centuries. In the leadership vacuum created by the decline of the Aryans, the Jews would undoubtedly become prominent, perhaps even to the extent of taking over Europe, but they were unable to reproduce themselves sufficiently rapidly to become a master race, and were likely to remain a powerful but detested caste.”
The Jews have obviously become something more than a “powerful and detested caste,” but I think Lapouge was right that the Jews are insufficiently numerous to rule in their own right. The Jewish parasites are somehow able to paralyze resistance and secure cooperation among their White hosts.
I’ll have to get the reprint edition of L’Aryen one of these days. Lapouge’s work, Les sélections sociales (Paris: Albert Fontemoing, 1896), is an excellent treatise on the forces of social selection — as opposed to natural selection — that shape the heredity of populations. Louis-Ferdinand Céline reportedly admired Lapouge’s work.
Exactly, W.R., human exploitation, or parasitism if you will, is above all, the basic nature of the Jewish problem. In the Anglosphere, Jewry has mind altered and psychologically paralyzed the White population to such an extent, that most people are deeply intellectually poisoned, and function as a domesticated, zombieized Golem for Jewry. There are, of course, lots of examples of parasitism in the insect world, and many books have been written about the disgusting zoological subject. Although there is some material on the subject in German from the NS time, little of this has been translated into English to date. Eustace Mullins made a feeble attempt at the subject with his very poorly researched and terribly written work entitled ‘The Biological Jew’.
What is obviously needed today is an erudite, scholarly, up to date book on this critical problem. Such a tome need not be dry, overly technical or heavy reading, as it could be rich in allegory and historical satire, yet factual and riveting. It would take an informed, well read intellectual, who really knows the JQ inside and out, to do an effective documentation on this vital subject. White Republican, you might just be the guy to really do this subject justice…, or know someone who might.
Junghans,
I’m not the right person to write a solid work on Jewish parasitism. I’ve many tasks to finish and many tasks I want to begin. In fact, I’ve too many things to do, and I need to better prioritize and plan work. But some projects I have in mind have a definite bearing on Jewish parasitism. I’d be quite interested in working on a translation of Hervé Ryssen’s latest book on the Jews. I’m also interested in developing Roger Mucchielli’s ideas on subversion.
I think a work on Jewish parasitism would need to address Jewish social engineering in both senses of the term, the micro and the macro.
One form of social engineering is, to use the subtitle of Christopher Hadnagy’s book on the subject, “the art of human hacking.” Hadnagy defines social engineering broadly as “the art or better yet, science, of skillfully maneuvering human beings to take action in some aspect of their lives.” He adds: “I like to take that definition a step further and say that a true definition of social engineering is the act of manipulating a person to take an action that may or may not be in the ‘target’s’ best interest. This may include obtaining information, gaining access, or getting the target to take certain action.” In this context, social engineering is usually used to refer to the manipulative techniques used by con men, scam artists, thieves, spies, and saboteurs.
Obviously, the Jews, with their high verbal IQ and their dual code of morality, are highly adept at social engineering. And White people, with the traits that Revilo P. Oliver discussed in his speech “What We Owe Our Parasites,” are more vulnerable to Jewish social engineering than people of other races.
My favorite example of a Jewish social engineer would be that of Trebitsch Lincoln. Born in Hungary, Lincoln was a veritable wandering Jew, becoming a Christian missionary in Canada, an MP in Britain, a spy in Germany, and a Buddhist abbott in Shanghai. He could climb into high places and crawl out of tight spots using his tongue. I think Andrew Hamilton could write a fascinating article about this “con man of Olympian stature.”
Another form of social engineering is that of what Francis Parker Yockey called “culture distortion,” whereby Jews use their power to manipulate entire institutions, societies, and cultures in their own interests.
The economic aspects of the latter form of social engineering deserve more attention. I recall listening to a two-part interview by James Bowery with Robert Stark, in which Bowery noted that Jews strongly favor the centralization or concentration of political and economic power in Jewish hands. While power is not formally centralized, it is informally centralized in that the relationship between big business and big government is one of condominium or joint rule. Working with big government, big business practices what Garrett Hardin called “the CC-PP game”: commonize costs and privatize profits. Playing the CC-PP game enables big business to make its fortunes and to eliminate serious competition. The system of finance, taxation, regulations, and laws favors oligopoly. (Stephen G. Hannaford’s Market Domination! is worth reading regarding oligopoly, which has reached incredible proportions in the U.S., and which only continues to grow.) As Andrew Hamilton has repeatedly noted, Jews know how to work the system, and they will readily band together to domesticate or destroy independently wealthy and powerful gentiles.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, W.R. Most of us lead busy lives, and often burn the candle at both ends, as the idiomatic expression goes. As regards, ‘social engineering’: cultural distortion & corruption, as well as mind warping, they are, of course, all part of the parasitical process of manipulating the popular mindset. I do concur, that the translation into English of Herve Ryssen’s latest book should be a high priority in our circles. From the excerpts that I’ve seen, his book appears to be most incisive, beneficial and timely.
Revilo Oliver’s works, despite his often bombastic style, usually contain much wit and wisdom, and I hold him in high regard as both a scholar and a visionary. Regarding Trebitsch Lincoln, he must have been the quintessential Jewish “Luftmensch”, by the sound of it. As far as Hardin’s description of the “CC-PP game”, I have also seen this plutocratic manipulation of the economy described as “socializing costs and risks, and privatizing profits”. The last statistics I remember seeing, and this may be confirmed in Hannaford’s work, 3% of the US population owned approximately 70% of all the wealth. This wealth pyramiding, and the ongoing asset stripping of the White middle class, go hand in hand. The economic, political, intellectual and racial downsizing, denigration and dispossession of the Anglo-White ‘milk herd’ is starting to have dire consequences.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Ed Connelly in blockquote:
In somber reply:
One, we have been “under the control of our enemies,” by their control of the words we read, and the pictures we see.
Two, remember the (paraphrased) words of former KGB Resident Yuri Bezmenov:
“The key to control is to demoralize the opposition. This was done for us, before we set foot in America. When we did, we were amazed at how much of the work of demoralization had already been done for us.”
This is right out of Sun Tzu;
“In battle, the morale is to the physical as one hundred is to one.”
That’s why a remoralization is necessary, and the North American New Right is so essential. Only counter-currents, and Harold Covington, are addressing the issues of the foundation of the metapolitical order, and how it ties into daily politics, practical politics, non-voting politics, and the daily substance of our lives.
It’s the first of the month. Nothing so inspires the confidence of the counter-currents people as tangible, financial support. THAT is effective, practical, non-voting politics.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
It’s easy to say that more could have been done, that more should have been done, and that leaders should have been made better decisions and chosen better courses of action. It’s easy to idolize or demonize personalities rather than assess them in a well-informed and judicious manner, and draw appropriate lessons. (I think Andrew Hamilton does the latter consistently.) It’s easy to say that leaders weren’t really leaders. But these truisms should raise several questions: What work should we be doing? What do we need by way of leadership to inspire and direct this work? What exactly do leaders lead, and to what ends? Why do we lack effective leadership? Why can’t we attract, develop, and retain the kind of people who can exercise leadership at all levels of a movement? How should we study the past in order to understand the present and future?
These questions should be addressed in terms of serious political and cultural analysis rather than sterile polemics revolving around particular personalities or groups. The theoretical framework and methodology needed for this work — both political and metapolitical — is largely absent from White nationalist culture. It’s imperative to establish such a framework and methodology.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
White Republican in blockquote:
Essentially, in political practice, White Nationalism has been reactive; hopelessly, pathetically, reactive, always letting Lucy call the shots, always being charlie Brown, never, evef connecting with the football.
Those Who Came Before Us always let The Opposition choose the language used to define the situation, the symbols seen by the people who watch the media, you name it. Rockwell intuited this, but he was a child of the radio/mass magazine age. Television, in general, and color television in particular, were used to stunning effect as the people saw “our Leaders” as green-toothed hillbillies wearing satin bedsheets and pillowcases as formal attire.
In short, the Battle we were engaged in had us displaying all of the aplomb of hogs on ice, always reacting like incompetent fools to the body shots that destroyed us, one after another.
Sam Francis moved into the area of Truth with his formulation of MARsians, but was limited by the uwillingness to accept what he clearly saw; that he System was, by its very nature, inimically opposed to our very existence.
Only one man – Harold Covington – realized that The System was killing off its source of creative energy, and could not be “fixed.” The answer was a New System, based on what was best for the White RACE as its foremost organizing principle.
The last man to face such a situation took political office in 1933, facing FIFTY percent unemployment, and a people desperate for a Leader with the Vision to see what was possible, and to help them to make it so.
He refused to accept The Enemy’s formulations, and so should we, as we Start Over, starting where we are, in the fulfillment of duty to a metapolitical destiny.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
A key concept of the kind of political and cultural analysis I advocate is that of legitimation and delegitimation. I’ve too much work to do right now to properly address this concept here, but I can recommend reading Kenneth E. Boulding’s short paper, “The Legitimacy of Central Banks,” which can be found at:
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/federal%20reserve%20history/discountmech/legcent_boulding.pdf
Boulding remarks:
“The more one looks at the dynamics of social systems . . . the more it becomes clear that the dynamics of legitimacy is one of the most important elements in the total long-run dynamics of society. . . . Its importance can be seen in the remark that if a person or institution loses legitimacy it loses everything. It can no longer maintain itself in the social system. No amount of wealth, that is, exchange capability, or power, that is, threat capability, can keep an institution alive if there is a widespread denial of the legitimacy of its role in society. This is because the performance of any continuous and repeated role requires an acceptance of its legitimacy on the part of those role occupants whose roles are related to it.
“A role in the social system is a focal point or node of inputs and outputs of many different kinds, the output of one role being the input of another. Inputs, therefore, depend on the willingness of other role occupants to give outputs, and they will not do this continuously unless there is legitimacy. Where people feel that certain outputs are illegitimate, they will eventually find ways of stopping them. The corresponding inputs will likewise stop. To use a rather crude illustration, a bandit can take your money once, but anyone who wants to take it every week either has to be a landlord or a tax collector, or perhaps even a bank.”
After noting that legitimacy has many sources and is complex and dynamic, Boulding identifies several sources of legitimacy, including (1) the payoffs of the institution in question, both good and bad, (2) age or tradition, (3) mystery, mystique, prestige, (4) ritual or artificial order, (5) the alliance of an institution with other legitimacies. I intend to examine these sources of legitimacy in the context of White nationalism.
Boulding notes the paradox that
“it is not merely good payoffs that give legitimacy but also bad payoffs, that is, sacrifices. A sacrifice or ‘grant’ may be defined as a one-way transfer from one decision unit to another, by contrast with exchange, which is a two-way transfer, from A to B and also from B to A. The structure of one-way transfer of commodities and exchangeables, I call the ‘grants’ economy, and it is a good first approximation measure of the extent and structure of the integrative system in general. If A makes a grant to B, the implication is that A identifies with B, A and B are in a community together, and A clearly regards B as legitimate. The dynamics of the grants system is very complex because to some extent grants are self-justifying. If A makes sacrifices to B for B, it is very hard for A to admit to himself that these sacrifices have been in vain. This would be a threat to his identity, which is the greatest threat that any person can feel. There is, therefore, a strong tendency to ‘throw good money after bad,’ and to continue making sacrifices for some institution, even after some possibly expected long-run payoffs have failed to materialize.”
People sometimes seem to think that worthless things are valuable because they are expensive. Sometimes the hardest thing for people to recognize is that they have made big mistakes. This is exacerbated by the apparent lack of real alternatives and solutions, which have often yet to be realized. We can’t find solutions lying around, we have to create them, and it can take a long time for these to become visible, credible, and successful in the eyes of others.
This article provides an interesting context to GLR’s activities and his failings such as believing the FBI was an honorable organization that adhered to any kind of reciprocity. In those days, the FBI paid Greg Scarpa, a known New York mafia hit man, to torture a Mississippi Klansman into revealing the locations of the three murdered civil rights workers. But personal failings aside, GLR was sincere in his anti-Jewish, pro-white convictions although I never would have sought an alliance with the Nation of Islam. But those were different times and politics makes for strange bedfellows.
I vehemently disagree that the Jews are racially dominant over whites. The Jews and Jewish “conversos” living in medieval Spain were far more numerous and militarily formidable than those in Europe and America today. Yet, they were defeated in battle, stripped of their wealth and status, and finally, ejected under the astute leadership of Isabella. Hitler’s National Socialists also made short shrift of the Jews.
You might argue that they are dominant in the sense that they will resort to any means, especially deceit and cunning, to gain the advantage over white gentiles and often succeed. At least at first, whereas, white gentiles often fail to recognize their being duped or that any people would resort to such means which puts them at a grave disadvantage. When whites have finally come to the senses pogroms often ensue to the detriment of the Jews.
The one time I met West Hooker (DC, 1985) he spoke dismissively of Russell Maguire. Apparently this was someone he couldn’t do much business with.
A while back I got these vitals via records on ancestry.com. Except for international travel, and some oil years in Texas, Maguire spent nearly his entire life in Connecticut:
John Russell Maguire
born 27 Jul 1897, Meriden CT — died 9 Nov 1966, Greenwich CT
son of John T Maguire (b 1865 CT) and Sara J McIlwaine (b 1866, Co. Fermanagh Ireland)
parents married, Connecticut, 1894
one sister, Ethel, born c. 1895
wife, Laura Ernestine Ambler, 1902-1974
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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
Lost your password?Edit your comment