Counter-Currents
968 words
Matt Heimbach and Scott Terry’s most recent adventure was leading several nationalists in a counter-protest of the degenerate Marxist May Day rally in Washington, D.C. The Marxists threw bags of urine at them, threatened to rape their wives and daughters, set their flags on fire, and barked “Nazi scum, your time will come!”
Yes. Our time will come.
What agents of decadence never get is that flinging your urine at a principled man does nothing to degrade him. When Jews record in their Talmud that Christ is boiling in excrement for all eternity, or their lackeys insist that Hitler molested his niece with his malformed genitals while instructing her to urinate on him, the mask slips on their own vulgar and resentful motives and mentalities. When Lady Gaga, Madonna, and Pussy Riot hump and squirm around on sacred religious symbols, they’re letting the mask slip on their own reactive and perverted machinations.
Matt Heimbach and Scott Terry were joined by several comrades in this latest skirmish, including multiple young women and some new men prepared to stand firm against a vast marching mob of degenerate dirt bags armed with piss bags. Scott’s passionate and poetic account of the event is an absolute must-read.
In an interview with CNN, Heimbach stated that he came there to represent the blue-collar working class specifically, an important point that deserves emphasis and analysis. Why are these pampered elites, lumpenproles, and foreigners framed in this overarching struggle as the champions of the workers while we’re framed as privileged elites, despite our being quite literally the last and only hope for America’s traditional working class families?
Let’s Take May Day Back
While it’s very promising that we did have a presence this year, May Day is a traditional European folk festival to begin with. It’s our day. Furthermore, worker’s issues are our issues. While the Marxists have nothing to show for all their prattle about workers’ this and people’s that, their dozens and dozens of opportunities to apply their rhetoric has left nothing, save for dead and starving workers scattered across dozens of failed states.
Meanwhile, we fascists accomplished a tremendous amount for the workers during our brief time upon the stage. Even kosher historians grudgingly admit that the National Socialist German Worker’s Party’s programs and initiatives revolutionized the daily lives of working families. It was critical in their gaining the loyalty of hardy laborers and apolitical Hausfrauen who were the backbone of that revolution.
In fact, it was so successful that the Germanic and Scandinavian countries quietly removed the nationalism from national socialism after the war and enjoyed several decades of safety, security, and prosperity for working families right up until mass immigration and Jewish subversion demonstrated why there can be no sustainable socialism without nationalism.
I know, I know, we’re not exactly Nazis, and many of us reject the label “fascists.” I get that, and I’m not proposing we put on some SS costumes and start goose stepping toward Washington. But there’s a refreshing clarity to street activism that I suspect men who’ve only considered these issues in safer and more subtle contexts fail to appreciate. When you’re surrounded by barking Jews, rampaging minorities and immigrants, and shrieking feminists goading them on, all those refined angles, abstract quibbles, and logical points about double-standards evaporate away.
Regardless of what you think of Hitler, World War II, or anything else, if you stand for faith and heritage against a representative sampling of the opposition’s street vanguard, you’re a “Nazi.” And I honestly would rather them call me a Nazi than a Republican, a libertarian, a “traditional conservative,” or any other word that strikes laughter and scorn rather than fear and hate into their angry little hearts.
“Fascist” works just as well to frighten our enemies and is more broad. While Nazism belongs to a different nation in a bygone age, fascism is this more abstract label that I’m happy to pin on myself. Dugin may want to set that aside in favor of his “fourth political theory” which is supposedly more global in scope and less supremacist, but it seems like a semantic game to me. After all, any movement which seeks to achieve the bare minimum of what we must achieve is going to be called “fascist,” and I like how the label draws a bright line between ourselves and “conservatives.”
The video features a Black guy who was there in solidarity with them. We all have extensive ties with similar restorationary projects the world over. As a movement, we’ve overwhelming landed on the side of Bashir Assad’s regime in the Middle East, and there’s even work to develop mutually respectful and supportive relationships with Third World movements which share our opposition to Global Jewry, finance capitalism, and degeneracy.
So, to the extent that there were parochial, supremacist, and imperial elements to the 20th century fascist projects, those are not integral to the Traditionalism and defense of family and tribe which are the wellspring of “fascism.” You can cut it down, but fascism can never be permanently uprooted. It’s the political manifestation of the innate will to stewardship, service, and collective pursuit of a more enriched and sustainable human experience.
Next year, and every following year, I hope we can turn out larger and larger crowds not only to oppose the freakshow, but to present a superior alternative. We’re going to win by going back to our fascist roots, pruning them a bit, and presenting a bold alternative to this regime and its lackeys. It will surely scare and confuse the masses who still trust the regime and its experts, but when they truly lose faith in their leaders in the years to come, they’ll give the men they’ve been vilifying this whole time a second look.
71 comments
I sense Matt Heimbach and Scott Terry to be reasonable and decent young guys. Somehow all the toxic lefiist brainwashing that the youth of today has had to suffer, has had the same effect on them as water off a ducks back has–none.
Those young men are men our ancestors would have recognized. Taking the message into the heart of a Marxist protest with the confederate flag. That takes some serious balls. My hat’s off to them. You too Matt. I know you’ve fought on the front lines too.
Real Courage from both Matts – physical courage from Heimbach and intellectual from Parrott. I’m impressed. And yeah, lets take back the word Fascism from the Ignorant.
That degenerate left-wing scum is running scared. That’s the only explanation for that kind of response. What, there were literally hundreds of them, and Matt and his comrades totaled 8, and they were still afraid to outright physically confront them. When the times really get serious, these craven bastards will melt away like the morning dew, along with their degenerate ideology.
Their ideologies are starting to crumble and their running scared. I’m proud of these young men who stand up to these maggots. I doubt if any of these creeps have done an honest days work in their lives. Have any of you seen the attempt by the Jew Mike Weinstein trying to get proselytizing out of the military. He compared sharing your faith with “spiritual rape”. He wants our soldiers tried for treason if they share their faith. We are living in truly horrible times and its time for intelligent white people to fight.
Matt Parrott makes a number of positive points in this article, especially about our relation to peoples of other races (comparable Third World movements), but I disagree with the notion that we should accept the description “Nazi” and “Fascist” (except for those who truly believe in Fascism or National Socialism [although in the latter case, there are usually somewhat justified objections to the term “Nazi”]). Those of us who do not actually follow the ideologies associated with these movements and who hold many important disagreements with their ideas and behavior should not embrace their name as our own.
There are those who advocate the implementation of a non-liberal, organic, ethnic separatist democracy (typical among key New Right thinkers) and those who believe in the restoration of organic, elitist, monarchical state systems (Radical Traditionalism). I find both of these two positions to be respectable in their own way, but to advocate “fascism” is to advocate totalitarianism (in the sense that Julius Evola defined it) and everything else that comes with it historically, which is simply unacceptable. Fascism cannot be described as “the political manifestation of the innate will to stewardship, service, and collective pursuit of a more enriched and sustainable human experience.” On the contrary, (as Evola among other thinkers had well established) there is a stark contrast between the mechanical and levelling unity of the totalitarian Fascist state and any organic state, which possesses a natural unity and a greater amount of freedom.
I understand the need to have a strong, firm, and virile appearance (as well as actual character), but accepting false descriptors is hardly the way to go about it. These same movements from the early 20th Century which we reference did not adopt a name from another movement a century earlier which had been vilified; they took up their own name. This is reason enough to reject the “recycling” of labels. We need to be forward-looking and in a general sense basically “Revolutionary Conservative”, and thus completely transcend temprorary and outdated movements like “Fascism.”
Lucian Tudor speaks for me here. Matt Parrott doesn’t.
I am opposed to National Socialism, and I have my reasons. This has nothing to do with disowning something only because it’s unpopular or stigmatized; it’s a real, principled disagreement.
I also oppose Fascism. It’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake. There were many brilliant and admirable people who supported it. (For example J.F.C. Fuller, who supported Sir Oswald Mosley ). Sometimes it was clearly much better than the alternative. Francisco Franco saved Spain. But in the long run, I think the best thing Fascism can do is abolish itself, after first abolishing the conditions that could lead to future Fascist governments. (Which Francisco Franco in effect did.) If your general recommendations for a system of government are that it (a) not even start, (b) abolish itself if it has started, and (c) make sure it doesn’t come back, you are not a supporter of that system of government. Again, this has nothing to do with backing away from something because it is unpopular; that is actually what I think.
I’m not going to throw a fit because I think some people are wrong about the merits of political systems existing in the first half of the previous century. White genocide through mass immigration and forced integration is a reality, and we are all morally obligated to oppose it, which excludes the attitude, “you must agree with me or I will take my toys and go home.”
But it would be nice if people like Matt Parrott would stop echoing the left in saying that “we” are akin to Fascists and Nazis. No we are not.
I do not support you on this, Matt, and a lot of other people opposed to white genocide don’t either. I am with people like Frank Salter, Kevin MacDonald and David Duke; none of them Fascists or Nazis, and all cognizant of the endangered vital interests of the white race as a whole, which I think is all-important, and which Hitler, with the blind complacency of a man living in an era where white hegemony seemed secure (except for Jewish competition in Germany) did not understand.
Daybreaker,
The North American New Right project is certainly not mine to define, and it certainly ought to and does encompass a broad range of perspectives.
Daybreaker,
Salter, MacDonald and Duke are intellectuals, not politicians. Those intellectuals must be “apple pies”, to use Jim Giles term, but politicians, “spooky”. The NS men needed to be vicious enough when handling a whole continent (the Soviet Union was practically a continent) that had squarely fallen to the ideas of the subversive tribe (see Greg’s latest comment on metapolitics in the other thread).
I would like to see how many of the scholars mentioned in the Wikipedia article you linked were Jews. I am so nervous to use the Wiki as a reliable source. I remember a text on Himmler checking the level of Aryanism in the countries the Nazis conquered and his thoughts gave me the impression that he considered even more Germanic in blood some peoples of the conquered towns that he himself (who was rather ugly). In Norway he gave me the impression that he wanted to use the people of a town as a genetic template for the Reich’s future conquests. And even in the Canary island where I lived Himmler’s henchmen were impressed by the genetic makeup of the pre-Hispanic inhabitants.
So this story that they intended to exterminate pure Aryans makes me doubtful.
As to non-apple pie Nazis, IMHO any nation that falls to the Jews merits a rather vicious conquest. If people like the Turner Diaries characters had the power of a full Aryan nation behind them, so powerful that they could conquer the US, you can imagine what would happen to millions of Americans, and I don’t mean only non-whites. “What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule [Murkans], and good only when good people rule [German people in the 1930s], they are not really good,” wrote Andrew Hamilton in a CC piece last year.
Google the phrase if you wish and see my brutal comment on it at WDH, explaining those brackets.
Matt Parrott,
The North American New Right project is certainly not mine to define, and it certainly ought to and does encompass a broad range of perspectives.
OK.
You’re right about May Day. It belongs to the working class, and as a tradition with European roots specifically to the white working class in white countries.
It does not belong to anti-white urine-throwing filth. It’s an offense for them to claim this day as theirs, when they are the cultural and and racial enemies (and often the financial exploiters) of the people it does belong to.
It was brave and right to oppose them publicly.
Daybreaker,
Salter, MacDonald, and Duke are all excellent writers. But none of them are political theorists. They point out important problems, but they do not take a stand on whether or not we need a fundamentally different political order to solve our problems and prevent them from recuring. If, however, one raises and explores that question, I believe that one will arrive at the conclusion that we do need a fundamentally new and illiberal political system, and that system will be very much like fascism and National Socialism.
To Greg Johnson and in part to Matt Parrott,
The kind of political system we want to see established may have some qualities that the Fascist or National Socialist states had (such as the opposition to individualism), but this certainly does not mean that there is an equivalence between our different groups. I have already referenced the fact that I have many disagreements with Fascist and National Socialist ideology; likewise, an organic state stands in contrast with a totalitarian state (and to be clear, even if it possesses a few organic elements the National Socialist state is still totalitarian in the sense that I have mentioned before). The kind of state most of us aim for holds very significant and important differences with the states of Hitler and Mussolini, regardless of any similarities.
If we accept false descriptors, our task of presenting ourselves and our ideas as they truly are is severely impeded; it is essentially a counter-productive act. Honestly, there are all sorts of unintelligent “liberals” and Leftists these days (including those in the above article) who like to throw labels such as “fascist” at anything they don’t like, and accepting their infantile declarations is not an appropriate reaction in my opinion (think of the way they might call the America of older time periods “fascist,” yet it’s not as if an American paleoconservative would suddenly accept the label). Furthermore, I should add that I can understand why someone would respect or admire certain leaders in the past who were Fascist or are now labelled “Fascist” (even if they were not), and we can even learn much by studying them. However, their movements, their strategies, and even many of their ideas are outdated or flawed, which is why I have mentioned earlier that we need to transcend them. We are something new and better than what came before, and we need to manifest and present ourselves as such, or else we will likely fall into old errors. As I have previously mentioned, movements like Fascism or National Socialism themselves took on a novel appearance; they did not make themselves appear as a “rehash” of some older political movement but something forward-looking. You yourself, Dr. Johnson, have pointed this out in certain past writings.
I understand your argument, but if we were to scrupulously avoid those old terms and set forth an illiberal racial nationalist system of government to an audience of bright, open-minded college students, how long do you think we would have before someone pipes up and says, “That sounds like fascism!” And at that point, you are going to have to say, “yes and no” anyway. So I think we gain credit for being up front about it. Besides, I think that these forbidden ideas are tremendously appealing to many people. The New Right is, in the end, different from the Old Right (as I deem fascism and NS), but we still are species of the same anti-egalitarian, illiberal political modernism.
Dr. Johnson,
You are correct, and even if I were talking to such students as you refer to I would admit that I have a few agreements with Fascism as well as other related movements, yet I would also establish my many differences with it, and anyone willing to listen to actual ideas will understand the point. It is by taking such a balanced position that I would be “up front about it,” rather than by actually claiming I am a “Fascist.” Some of our opponents can say what we desire “sounds like fascism,” but many real Fascists today will tell us what we aim for does not sound Fascist at all, just as a capitalist can say we sound like socialists while a Marxist can say we are “bourgeois”; what we want really “sounds” like a lot of things depending on who is the viewer. There are many other past movements, groups, or states which can be compared to some extent with what we want (although always imperfectly), and it is for this reason that our opponents can try to link us with old American Confederates, Klansmen, various European racial practices in earlier centuries, and so on. As in the case of comparisons to “Fascism,” this does not mean that we should passively accept all labels and accusations. Also, to people who complain about Fascism, I would further add that no movement or state in history is completely and totally bad or unjustified (and, of course, needs to be viewed within the context of its time period).
Postwar “Fascism” or attempts at reviving old movements are always bound in hopeless revisionism (which, in my opinion, is usually incorrect and unconvincing even if revisionists sometimes make valid points) and an oftentimes ridiculous attachment to outdated movements, which paralyzes their ability for real political development. They are “reactionaries” (as Moeller van den Bruck used the term) in the sense that they merely obsess over reviving past states or parties that cannot be. If a group which is not truly Fascist, National Socialist, etc. accepts these terms as self-descriptors, it will likely begin to fall into these same errors because of its necessary link with them; and if not, it will endlessly have to redefine the terms it uses to describe itself in ways that defy basic historical and etymological reality. We do not want to look like people who have not learned from history in an appropriate way, we want to look truly like a “New Right” which has learned from the mistakes of past right-wing movements, is well beyond them, and offers something better. And finally, to be completely straightforward, I agree with Alain de Benoist’s statement that “fascism” and “antifascism” are both anachronistic and obsolete, and I would definitely tell that to any student. Our opponents constantly like to repeat that we have not learned from history and that we have outdated ideas, and we need to firmly show that they are wrong, that the Leftist and liberal tendency to link us with past ideas and practices which were harmful is inappropriate and downright hysterical.
illiberal political system, and that system will be very much like fascism and National Socialism.
I don’t want to make the problem so general and abstract as to be meaningless, but I wonder how much the system matters at all. It’s who runs things. Imagine having the power of the US federal government at our disposal if the US federal government were being run by white nationalists.
Theoretically, if you have responsible stewards running things, I don’t how it matter if you have a monarchy, a dictatorship, republic or a hybrid. Even democratic forms assuming a healthy culture and people seem to produce fine results.
The problem with fascist centralization of power exercised without accountability is that it’s vulnerable to subversion, corruption, or becoming subservient to factions. It’s a serious drawback, because historically white elites have been open to all of those things.
Lew: “Even democratic forms assuming a healthy culture and people seem to produce fine results.”
Although I think political structure has some importance, you are right on this point about democracy. My previous writings on Counter-Currents reference intellectuals who have made extensive critiques of democracy, and many of their points have validity. However, it really must be admitted that a non-liberal democracy founded upon the right principles, values (and indeed a democracy can have aristocratic values in a certain way), and within the right cultural background can really be something desirable. There are different conceptions of democracy which have been offered by thinkers such as Carl Schmitt, Alain de Benoist, or Guillaume Faye (to give a few examples) which offer such positive visions. Even if some of us understandably do not find democracy as the ideal political form (and I have to admit that it is not my personal preference), it may ultimately be what we will have to accept and even support because a (non-liberal, organic, ethnic separatist) democracy rather than another state form is perhaps the most likely to become dominant.
Greg,
The form of the state naturally conforms to the temperament and capacities of the nation, the prevailing definition of who is a friend and who is an enemy, and the vital tasks set by geography and culture.
When Kevin MacDonald or David Duke says “our race” they mean “white people”. That’s what I mean too. We are on the same page, at least as to the definition of “us”.
Drang nach Osten: “…as Adolf Hitler said on 7th February 1944: It is eastwards, only and always eastwards, that the veins of our race must expand. It is the direction which Nature herself has decreed for the expansion of the German peoples.”
When Hitler said “our race” there he meant Germans, as opposed to the enemy, Slavs.
We are not on the same page. I don’t have anything in common with a guy who had that view of who “we” were and who “they the enemy” were. You can say I ought to, because we are both “on the right” (though actually I’m more a Jack London fan), but “right and left” are abstractions; “friend and foe” are fundamental, and there is no compatibility.
I think the task facing us is cooperation between whites in all nations to resist cultural aggression and avoid war.
“White nationalism” is a proven loser against Red internationalism, so we need white internationalism to resist this:
Peters’ 1997 article “Constant Conflict” stated: “There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.”
Basically what’s needed is promotion of healthy pro-white culture, resistance to cultural assault, and diverse white countries united in a common diplomatic front to avert war.
I think states well-formed to further this cooperative and peaceful (or militarily defensive) project with 21st century technology will bear no resemblance to a state shaped to the imperative of “Drang nach Osten” with 20th Century technology.
I also think that Fascism is a dead end for whites, because if it fails it fails, and if it succeeds you’ll have a healthy, increasingly prosperous white nation with high trust and declining social tension. What will healthy, wealthy, mutually trusting and cooperative whites want? A vote. And they will never let up till they get it. So the best Fascism is that which abolishes itself.
I think that virtually every post-War admirer of National Socialism, particularly non-Germans, reject German imperialism and colonialism directed at whites in favor of a pan-European solidarity. Indeed, during WW II itself, there was an evolution in this direction due to the influx of European volunteers into the SS.
Daybreaker,
You are judging Hitler mostly for his ideas about Slavs. Instead you should be judging Slavs for their horrendous deeds.
I trust you have read at least the abridged edition of the Gulag Archipelago. Have you?
There are passages where Solzhenitsyn, who was an Orthodox Christian, not a Nazi (he actually was captain of the Red Army when his battalion entered Prussia before falling in disgrace and being sent to Siberia) induces the reader to crave for a German victory in order to liberate poor Alexandr and his zek companions enslaved in the prison camps.
I doubt that everything that the MSM says on TV about the Nazi German camps is true. But even of it is true, The Gulag Archipelago reads like what all of us have seen on those documentaries and films of the Nazi period multiplied for a factor of 60 or 70 at the Soviet Union. No hyperbole.
When I was a teenager a reviewer of Solzhenitsyn’s said, “To live now and not to know this work is to be a kind of historical fool.” I believe that if anyone read at least the abridged version the crimes attributed to Hitler, including what you say about going East, will be dwarfed in the readers’ mind.
I write this comment this because I doubt that most nationalists who have been criticizing fascism here or at AltRight have read the most important historical book of the 20th century. If they did it their POV would change. (I too was a deranged anti-fascist not so long ago.)
Greg Johnson: “I think that virtually every post-War admirer of National Socialism, particularly non-Germans, reject German imperialism and colonialism directed at whites in favor of a pan-European solidarity.”
–
That’s good.
I guess what I’m saying is that I want my new wine in new wineskins.
But I understand that the New Right project is not mine to define, and that there is and will be a wide diversity of views.
For me, the bottom like is that mass non-white immigration and forced integration is white genocide, and everyone must learn that and everyone must oppose it. Given that overwhelming priority, differences on history are just differences on history.
Chechar: I trust you have read at least the abridged edition of the Gulag Archipelago. Have you?
–
Yes.
But then you are arguing about which side was even worse than the other.
We should try for the good rather than the lesser evil.
Never again either Barbarossa or the Hellstorm. Never again the kind of leaders who had the world in their hands and threw it away.
Churchill wanted to keep England white. He tried. But he could not get support for a pro-white agenda, and in the end his career did not favor whites. Leonid Brezhnev said that the only important question was if the white race would survive, but the foreign policy of the Soviet Union was anti-white. And so on.
The big men of the past were failures, and that is how things got so bad that the future of the white race is now in doubt.
They had an instinct of racial solidarity, but never the theory and the willingness to push other issues down the priority list and let quarrels go, and without theory and an adequate priority, instinct went for almost nothing. Meanwhile our enemies prioritized race and anti-white solidarity, while propagandizing whites never to exhibit solidarity. It worked.
We have to play a new game. The old one was no good.
Greg Johnson: “… how long do you think we would have before someone pipes up and says, “That sounds like fascism!” And at that point, you are going to have to say, “yes and no” anyway. So I think we gain credit for being up front about it.”
Agreed, though I’d suggest that it becomes incumbent upon us to flesh out what type of government structure that we actually seek. Otherwise, that bright student will likely fill in the blanks himself, and the manner in which he does so will be shaped by systemic anti-white propaganda, for the simple reason that we haven’t developed our own ideas.
Further, with our benefit of hindsight, I think we can create something better than what is regarded as “fascism.” If we can, then it will deserve its own name.
In any event, it’s clear that some of the commenters here have given this some thought, and I think it would be valuable to hear more. For example, I’d be very interested in Chechar expanding upon his views, particularly the Roman two consul concept.
I remember the first time I heard William Pierce speak (it was an interview by a friendly, back in the 90’s), and he was asked what kind of government he favored. He gave an answer which I did not like at the time, but am in full agreement with now. He basically said that we needed whatever kind of government was necessary to protect our race. In other words, the survival of our people trumped all other concerns, including liberty. I was quite young at the time, still heavily influenced by libertarianism, and so his answer wasn’t exactly thrilling to me. I didn’t want to hear it, but I needed to hear it, and even then I could see the wisdom in it. Our cause isn’t about mechanisms and devices, it’s about securing the existence of our people and a future for white children.
Still, while he made a point that was very much worth making, I think we need to go into further detail where appropriate, while always making it clear that we aren’t fetishizing governmental devices and schemes over the protection of our people. That’s been a huge flaw in American thinking, going back to the founding. Basically, the American system simply assumes that people will be self-interested pigs, but through the magical device of checks and balances, no single self-interested pig will gain too much power. While I’m in favor of checks and balances, I think we’ve seen what a culture of self-interested pigs leads to, and it shows the folly of putting one’s faith in devices while allowing the culture and race to rot. Devices and nifty mechanisms don’t protect you when you have a population of Orcs.
In any event, for any reader who may wish to develop a theoretical governmental structure, I’d like to throw two ideas into the mix which may by useful.
Firstly, we should recognize that politics, in whatever system, is an inherently messy thing, with winners and losers, the satisfied and the disgruntled. There are jobs going, and somebody is going to get them, and somebody isn’t. Same with funds and so forth. Yet the overriding purpose of the ethnostate is to protect the ethnos, in perpetuity. For that, we may need a separate body that does not muck up its hands with ordinary politics. We don’t want the racial imperative sullied by a group of leaders who make a dog’s dinner of the economy, or the neighborhood school, or get us into an unpopular war, or any other policy. There is no need to conflate the racial imperative with passing political needs.
I would suggest a separate Senate with very specific, enumerated powers. Basically, its purpose would simply be to maintain the racial integrity of the homeland. That’s it – that’s its jurisdiction. In a healthy society, it should have virtually nothing to do, and might meet for only a few days a year – but it would exist. We should think about how its members would be selected, and exactly what powers it should have to accomplish its perpetual mission. Perhaps each level of government should have its own such Senate, but in any event the main point is that it would have one overriding purpose, and its job would not be conflated with other governmental responsibilities and policies. It would aspire to be timeless and unimpeachable, not sullied by the ups and downs of normal political affairs.
Secondly, we should recognize that elitism may be more acceptable with meaningful, as opposed to mere theoretical, accountability. I think one means of achieving this is through the defensive referendum. By that I mean that the citizenry would be able to target and repeal laws that the government enacted (the constitution might carve out some limited exceptions, for example the citizenry could not vote to repeal the ban on non-white immigration, as the nation is held in stewardship for future generations of whites, for all time, and no particular generation has the right to undo that).
In other words, the idea is that only the proven elite should craft laws, but at the end of the day, the citizenry retains a right of repeal, at least on normal political matters. That could be an important ingredient in a sustainable arrangement, and if it’s not sustainable, it doesn’t matter anyway (hat tip to Parrott’s site).
That is one of the most important things to keep in mind: certain ideas might “work” quite well, but if they are unlikely to last, then they aren’t a good idea for our purposes. For instance, the Founder’s original system of a highly limited franchise was perfectly sensible…and yet quickly disintegrated. That sort of thing is no use to us. On the other hand, perhaps a graduated franchise could be sustainable.
Anway, I think these ideas and many others need to be developed, as opposed to allowing system propaganda to fill in the blanks in the minds of our target audience. Food for thought, and I hope readers will put pen to paper.
I appreciate your comments.
I agree that we do need to work out a detailed political vision, a kind of White Nationalist Manifesto. Unfortunately, I don’t feel ready to work on that yet, and I do not have the luxury of stretches of uninterrupted time necessary to write it. So for the time being, it will have to be piecemeal.
I think we should bear in mind, though, that the true foundation of good government is not a paper constitution but rather the character of the people and their leaders. The best constitution in the world is worthless if the people and leaders are corrupt. Thus the true foundation of political order is the character of the people. And that means that the most important institutions are those that shape the character of the people: education, culture and entertainment, religion, the market (unfortunately — hence the need to regulate it for reasons other than pursuit of equality), etc. Thus establishing and maintaining a White Nationalist cultural hegemony is key: pretty much any paper constitution or political framework can be bent to our ends if the right cultural spirit infuses it.
That said, even though the spirit is primary, it would be best if we had institutions that reinforce rather than undermine that spirit, and some regimes are better than others. As suggested in my articles “Introduction to Aristotle’s Politics” and “Notes on Populism, Elitism, and Democracy,” Aristotle’s idea of the mixed regime is very appealing, and it was pretty much a model for the US Constitution, which could, with some tinkering, be made into a suitable vehicle for preserving our race on this continent.
The benefit of this approach is that the political “bottle” of the NANR need not seem like it is from Mars, but the contents would still be essentially illiberal.
The main reason I oppose old fashioned “hard” totalitarianism (which, granted, in the case of Fascism and NS is nothing close to Stalin and Mao) is that the soft totalitarianism of cultural hegemony sits rather comfortably with most whites and would be sufficient to save our race.
Chechar, I find your attempt to use Solzhenitsyn to justify what the Germans did in the East to be absurd (since obviously Solzhenitsyn himself would hardly approve of the displacement of his own people with another). What the Germans did to Slavic groups – not merely the Russians but Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Belarusians, and so on (who obviously were largely hostile to Communism) – was truly criminal and cruel behavior. This is historical reality; it is not simply “Jewish historians” who record the way they mistreated, enslaved, and massacred many innocent Slavic people, but numerous Slavic historians from their various nations as well as numerous testimonies from those who knew what happened. Even Alfred Rosenberg (who was inclined to be more friendly towards Slavs than most other National Socialists) complained about they way the Third Reich treated Eastern Europeans in his “Memoirs.” Hitler’s ideas about the Slavs are not even the worse examples of “anti-Slavism” that we can find, as we can see even more negative attitudes from people like Goebbels, Himmler, or Koch. And really, I say these things as someone who is sympathetic to many of the so-called “Fascist” movements of that time period (and indeed, I even had a great amount of respect for Hitler before I learned more about both his foolish mistakes as well as how he treated conquered peoples), even though I offer criticism and insist on maintaining a distance, not as some “deranged antifascist.”
You are technically right but from that POV every single great man in Western history who tried to defend our civilization was deeply flawed.
You know, today I’ll add a long quotation in my blog of Edward Gibbon’s take on Emperor Julian, and yesterday I quoted from Gore Vidal’s pretty accurate historically, though fictionalized, novel on the last pagan Roman Emperor.
You will be surprised to learn that just as Julian blundered by invading Persia, centuries later Hitler (like Napoleon) blundered too by invading Russia (Hitler’s generals didn’t agree with the invasion; hence the wisdom of having two consuls in the coming Fourth Reich).
But the real issue is that, gigantic flaws aside, both Julian and the German chancellor wanted to save their civilization from an all out Semitic attack (since I have just started to quote Gibbon and Vidal, for a more complete statement see e.g., my WDH entries authored by the Spanish writer Manu Rodríguez, who, like me, used to hate the Nazis).
The whole point is that both Julian and Hitler failed miserably because they overreached themselves. However, had any of them won, the old struggle of the Aryan vs. Semite would have scored a tremendous victory for us.
In other words we must judge Julian, Hitler (or any other Aryan, like Vercingetorix or Hermann, who fought for the race and fell in the battle and even into utter disrepute for their humiliating defeats) through a human parameter; not a divine one. Only the gods don’t commit historical blunders.
But what about Ted’s counsel below: Two consuls, a Senate, tribunes of the people to impede future blunders by Fuhrers and Duces in the Fourth Reich? Have you really taken into consideration the huge challenges an ethnostate will face in the future, with our ancient enemies lustfully craving for another Hellstorm? Did you take a look at Severus Niflson’s response to Linder’s naïve libertarianism I linked in this thread? If you are not on the same page of Linder, what exactly do you propose (which political system)?
Lucian Tudor,
I agree that the whole Eastern operation was a terrible, terrible mistake. And I am still appalled by the way some Jewish children were murdered in the small Russian towns.
However, the brutal point of my second comment in this thread was that any white peoples who fall under the spell of an obviously race-destroying, Jewish agenda, as was the case of Russian Bolshevism, deserves a fairly vicious response. Only in this sense I can understand Hitler’s overreaction. As a commenter who I have not seen here posting for some time put it:
Hitler didn’t win an electoral majority. He won most seats and was given the Chancellorship by the German elite in 1933: the year after the Jewish Bolsheviks deliberately starved six million Ukrainians to death. Can there be any real doubt that the threat of the Bolshevik terror influenced both the German voters and the decision to give Hitler the Chancellorship? Why isn’t this taught in the schools?
Tens of millions killed in the first industrial scale mass murder in history from 1917 onwards—the Red Terror and War Communism under Lenin and Trotsky’s leadership long before Stalin—culminating in the deliberate starvation of six million Ukrainians in 1932 as revenge for past anti-Jewish pogroms. Why isn’t this taught in the schools?
Trillions of dollars and millions of man-hours have gone into creating a global memorial to the holocaust—films, books, indoctrination of millions of school children, countless museums—and absolutely nothing to commemorate the tens of millions murdered by the Jewish Bolsheviks. Not only a holocaust in its own right but the primary cause of the subsequent Fascist reaction (my emphasis) they say came out of inherent evil of the Aryan nature: a position that would be impossible to sustain if Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik holocaust was more widely known.
So, compare and contrast the collective memorial to the Jewish dead with the collective non-memorial to the non-Jewish dead and you have Talmudic morality caught in the headlights.
My emphasis again.
Trainspotter,
I am a dilettante in political theory. Severus Niflson is the expert on this subject, and if you have heard him speaking in the diverse nationalists’ radio shows you may have already a picture of what he stands for.
Suffice it to say, and this is me not Severus, that to avoid blundering on a colossal scale (Operation Barbarossa) the idea of two counsels Reich, inspired in Rome before Caesar horribly betrayed the Republic (he also committed an horrendous white genocide in Gaul), could be complemented by stealing a page from Plato’s Republic.
If you are familiar with any of the stories on the white race written by Pierce or Kemp, you already know that the Greco-Roman world started to degenerate as soon as it started to miscegenate.
Throughout Plato’s book runs the fear of the degenerative Ionian and Athenian ethos, which he (like Hitler millennia later) believed could be cured only by Dorian discipline. The Spartan code forbade miscegenation. Plato’s Laws anticipated somehow 20th century fascism, but unlike the Germans, he was not as passionate about keeping the Aryan genotype intact as the Spartans.
I mention Plato only because it seems to me that later in this century whites will have to make a pick between individualism (Ionians, Athenians, etc.) and collectivism (Dorians, Spartans) when elaborating the constitution of the coming (neo-fascist?) ethnostate.
In the new civilization everything will about war. When my grandmas were young, the Germans and the Italians understood this perfectly. In a militarized state libertarians will have no participation in the power of the State. Severus satirizes non-collectivist, though pro-white blueprints for the first hundred years after the formation of the ethnostate as an impossible political animal insofar as it just cannot survive among such formidable enemies.
P.S. to Trainspotter:
A more proper reply to your quest appears here:
http://chechar.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/two-consuls/
Vox Day recently made an important distinction between national socialism, as practiced in Germany, and fascism, as practiced in Italy, and I think he was spot on.
I think it’s important to distinguish the two. Based on what Vox outlined, I would not consider myself amenable to Italian fascism. But given that the aristocratic system has no reasonable chance of being reinstated, I would say that national socialism, on the other hand, is broadly the best political movement we can hope for. It’s far less totalitarian than fascism, far more organic and traditional — basically replacing an aristocracy of birth with an aristocracy of character.
I do think we should reject the term “Nazi” as an obvious pejorative, but calmly and patiently explaining the merits of national socialism is a sound goal.
Also, given that everyone on the genuine right, from Dr. Duke to American Renaissance to paleoconservatives, for heaven’s sake, are regularly and routinely dubbed “Nazi,” I see little benefit in trying to distance ourselves, one from the other. None of us is going to escape the labelling. It’s long past time for everyone on the trad. right to stop saying, “MY position is the sensible one, but everyone to the right of me is to be denounced.” That just reinforces the criticisms of the enemies, and subtly confirms the premise that leftward is more moral, rightward more immoral.
It’s long past time to stop trashing our fellow-travellers, especially those to the right of us (wherever any one of us may be), and instead save all of our antipathy and criticism for the true enemies.
I believe that any form of democracy, even a ” non-liberal, organic, ethnic separatist democracy” will result in bringing us right back here to this point again.
Though I love our people I also believe that I have lived amongst the lower caste of our people enough to understand their weaknesses, and they do not deserve democracy. Most of our people, including about 99.99 percent of women ( me included) do not need to vote in a system that gives them the same voting power as any other voter.
Democracy is what got us here, even cloaked in the term ” Republic” as it was here in the US. It’s a nice idea, but only theoretically, it always devolves into the lowest common denominator.
Here’s an excellent description of “Fascism”:
http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-fascism.html
I’m all for what worked under Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy, but our jewish masters have tarnished the terms ‘Fascism’ and ‘National Socialism’ , hence creating new labels may be necessary in order our brainwashed brethren today to accept what historically worked in Germany/Italy in the 1930’s.
Perfect Matt. I see you have been unfolding your thought precisely on the right track. Just curious: Was the K.O. guy on the floor a good or a bad guy?
A propos the discusssion about the desirability of fascism, both as a system and as a term :
An hierarchical system with a Fuehrer at the top works splendidly as long as such a Fuehrer is indeed infallible. In the more prosaic case that he is not, his mistakes might have catastrophic consequences for his nation. Therefore an hierarchical system with checks and balances is needed. That means that there should be constitutional limits to the power of the leader and that, if needs be, he can be voted out of power by a kind of inner party democracy. (in the case of Hitler, that would have meant that he could have been voted out of military power by his generals).
How to call such a political system? The term “fascism” is indeed too much loaded with negativity for the general public, so a new term must be invented.
How about ETHNOCRACY?
A preliminary description of ethnocracy would be :
1) A political system that has the well being of the Volk as its highest aim. That means the people as a whole and not only certain sections of it (certain families, the elite, the middle class, the working class etc.), nor international entities (the international proletariat, “humanity”, the global elite, multinational corporations, international banks etc.).
2) For this purpose the most efficient form of political power should be installed, which is an hierachical system (such as in an army, which is an organization that must be efficient).
3) Within this one-party hierarchical system a form of democracy is allowed, in the sense that the members of one level can submit petitions to their leadership, which will have to be taken seriously. In the case of serious distrust, the leadership can be voted away by a majority of 75% and a new one installed.
4) Candidates for leadership functions will have to be qualified by 1) character, 2) education, 3) experience. Cases of corruption or serious mismanagement will disqualify for public functions for good.
5) Local autonomy for small communities such as villages, neighborhoods and religious communities shall be allowed.
6) All natural resources of the nation are the property of the people and shall be used for its benefit only (and not for the national elite or international corporations).
7) Revenues from taxes and natural resources shall be used for : 1) governance, 2) defense, 3) police and the judiciary, 4) infrastructure, 5) social security for the genuine needy, 6) health care, 7) education, while public transportation and utilities (water, electricity and gas) and social housing shall be heavily subsidized. The rest of the economy shall be left to free enterprise, but no free trade or outsourcing that harms the national economy shall be allowed. What can be produced locally shall be produced locally, thus a degree of autarky will be achieved.
8) Education shall contain not only knowledge necessary for earning a livelihood but also knowledge of the history, culture and ideals of the Volk.
9) Degenerate art and other expressions of degeneracy shall be excluded from the public sphere, though tolerated in the private sphere, if not of a criminal character. (such as paedophilia etc.).
10) Ethnocracy is meant for a homogeneous population, therefore ethnic homogeneity shall be the practical ideal to strife for. That means no immigration of racial or ethnic aliens shall be allowed, propaganda for miscegenation shall be forbidden, while for racial or ethnic minorities already inside the country a territorial solution shall be found, either within the national territory or without. Until that time their basic human rights shall be respected while they will enjoy cultural freedom in their private sphere .
11) Other peoples who endorse ethnocracy for themselves shall be respected as allies in the struggle for the preservation of all ethnic groups of the world against the New World Order that tries to destroy them.
I would add to this list a serious state run program of eugenics that divided people into 4 distinct classes. The level of each individual would be determined by a combination of IQ, athletic ability, physical appearance and service to the folk (10%) Tests to determine caste level would commence at about 14 years old and continue throughout ones life.
The lowest levels of people, Ds, would give up their rights to reproduce, C levels would be allowed one child per couple, B and A level would be allowed to have as many children as they chose and A levels would be compensated for the number of children they produce.
The choice to marry below ones level would reduce you to that caste but a caste level could be raised if a couple produced a child or children of a higher level.
I know that it sounds radical, but I was raised on a cattle ranch and I have bred horses for many years and this is the only way to get our people back to the level they once were. We cannot achieve greatness if we continue on the genetic course we are now.
Bravo for getting right down to the nitty gritty. No one has the courage to even talk about this stuff anymore. And yes, we have declined. Our brightest people are right up there with the Jews and the East Asians. The difference? They produce far more of them so their average is higher. And the average is what sets the tone for the Civilization – or makes one impossible.
The question is how to maintain human rights and dignity and still do this. Postive Eugenics no problem. But the negative, denying people the right to reproduce is the problem. I’d try incentives towards voluntary sterility first. But if a women kept having babies out of wedlock, then yes, do it against her will. And for couples who refused to limit themselves to one or two, no welfare or social services. And every society will have some rebels – some of whom may make a contribution later or their children might. The Elite must always know that they could be wrong in a given instance.
Yes, the practice of eugenics for a whole polpulation would be essentially the same for men as for cattle, but men have the strange peculiarity not to like to be treated as cattle.
Natural eugenics is already practised in that successful, talented men tend to marry beautiful, healthy women. Thus talent, character, beauty and health are selected.
For a well functioning society it is not necessary that the whole population is of the highest quality, only the leadership is enough. Our present malaise is due to a bad leadership, both political and cultural.
Humans are already treated like cattle, they are fed and herded and corralled. Eugenics is currently not being practiced on any sort of organized level by any racial group but the Jews.
” in a laboratory in Brooklyn, the ancient ways of Orthodox shidduchim, or matchmaking, meet up with the most advanced molecular technology by way of a vial of blood, a confidential ID number and a computer registry of tens of thousands of anonymous Tay-Sachs screenings from Orthodox Jews around the world.
Chevra Dor Yeshorim, Hebrew for “a generation of the righteous,” is a confidential, premarital screening program for Tay-Sachs that tells a couple whether, genetically speaking, they are a good match. That is, could they marry and have children without fear of their offspring suffering from the disease? Because Tay-Sachs is a recessive genetic disease, both parents must carry the gene for a baby to be born with it.”
There is a 1 in 20 chance that an Ashkenazi Jew will carry the Tay Saches gene, while there is a 1 in 24 chance that a person of European ancestry will carry the gene for Cystic Fibrosis.Jews are testing their people but we dont test for the cystic fibrosis ( of which I found during my last pregnancy I am a carrier) gene until the women is pregnant and it is basically too late.
If Jews do it why cant we?
Meanwhile if someone is genetically sub par and they want to have children tough shit. They just wont be allowed to. There are plenty of rules in the world and that will just be another one they will have to abide by. The current population of Americans doesnt seem to have a problem with killing the unborn so I dont see why they would be that upset about having the lower end of the population sterilized.
Remember if we have our way we are not going to be under the influence of the same egalitarian fantasy that we are now where everyone gets to vote and gets to do whatever feels good.
“The current population of Americans doesn’t seem to have a problem with killing the unborn, so I don’t see why they would be that upset about having the lower end of the population sterilized.” Well, they would be upset, because they’ve been taught to be upset about such things. They’ve been piously told that observations such as “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) are “chilling” (i.e., unsentimental) and “pseudo-scientific” (i.e., contrary to egalitarian superstitions and Jewish lies). As for the effective sterilization of the upper end of the population (through the individualism, careerism, and materialism promoted by feminism and capitalism), they don’t even notice this.
The short memory of Americans may mean that re-educating them is not impossible. But this can only happen if the death grip of the Jews over the media and other branches of the “Culture Industry” is broken.
The Natural Order has been destroyed. So how does one recreate it but from above – i.e, artificially? We simply don’t have time or the freedom to let it come back on its own. Remember, one of the definitions of Fascism is the system of defence of the modern Nation State under attack. Even if we has a Natural Order, such a Nation would still have to centralize while under attack from without. The Democracies do it as well. As did ancient States. Some ancient Societies had a War King and a Peace King.
I was looking at the English Language Gold Dawn site. It said that all land belongs to the State. Would we have to go this far? It might be necessary in a small Nation like Greece but I agree with the Church that private property is a great break against Tyranny and for the dignity of the individual. In his classic “Which Way Western Man” the author felt that private property strengthened the family and produced the kind of individuals that could sustain a natural aristocracy and high level yeomanry. But again, what is the relationship between the State and the Natural Order? Are we left hoping that the State will wither away as classic Marxism does? I’d say that we should preseve as much of the Natural Order as we can during the Centralization process – since the State has a tendency not to so wither.
I suspect that there’s a mistranslation where it says that “all land belongs to the state”; the translation might be conflating “state” with “nation.” National socialism doesn’t mean that the state owns and controls everything (not even communism could do that), but it is hostile to foreign ownership of national property (like the Chinese ownership of part of Piraeus in the case of Greece), and it holds that the state should act as an arbiter in economic life for the common good. National socialism regards private property as a right, but not as an absolute right.
I think this bunch was too dumb to realize that they were marching for Goldman-Sachs:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395
There is no “dumbness” involved here. This is a conscious attempt at genocide of the European peoples, which is an essential part of the New World Order in which the Jews will be the ruling class over a deracinated, mongrelized and enslaved humanity. In spite of his non-Jewish sounding name, this fellow Peter Sutherland is in all probability a Jew (look at the form of his nose!). His background in Goldman Sachs is another give away. So no surprise here.
Hi Greg Johnson and Matt Parrott.
I have read a new book from Arthur Kemp, its called:
“Nova Europa: European Survival Strategy in a Darkening World:http://www.amazon.com/Nova-Europa-European-Darkening-ebook/dp/B00BEIKFTS
Have you read it? It would be nice to hear what you think of it, and the reasoning and arguments of the book. I really think it is one of the most important white nationalist books of all time, when it comes to the survival of our race.
I would like to see a review of the book at Counter Currents.
I would also recommend his book “Folk and Nation: Ethnonationalism Explained”:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/arthur-kemp/folk-and-nation-ethnonationalism-explained/paperback/product-20484988.html
I would also like to ask if you have read something of Richard McCullochs books? And what you think of his works?
Unfortunately, I think his books are underrated and sadly it seems that few have read his books. In my thought, there is no one else who explains so very well why it is important to preserve our race. I think McCulloch and Kemp his a must read for everyone.
Best regards
Per from Sweden
Thanks for your comments.
I read McCulloch’s books a decade ago, and I agree that they are worthwhile. I will try to scrounge up some reviews and reprint them.
I have not read the Kemp titles. We will have to review them.
It is good news, I suppose, that there are so many new books coming out on “our side” that we do not have enough people to review them.
Thank you to Greg. I would love and appreciate to read your reviews of Richard McCulloch.
Do you have an email address I can reach you?
Best regards Per
[email protected]
Arthur Kemp is good. I like Folk and Nation. But The Lie of Apartheid taught me more, because to see why a correct understanding of folk and nation matters, first I had to internalize how hopeless a broken-backed system like Apartheid is. You can toil like a Trojan and it won’t do you any good if your basic idea was wrong.
I can’t comment on Nova Europa because I only just bought it on Kindle now.
I contrast fascism and national socialism as general political principles from the specific manifestations of those ideas in Italy and Germany. If we (as per Griffin) consider national socialism as a variant of fascism, then I (borrowing from Griffin) would broadly define fascism as palingenetic “ultra” nationalism that combines aspects both elitist and collectivist.
The “nationalism” needs little comment, and the palingenetic component sharply distinguishes fascism from the “para-fascist” frauds that many on the left call “fascist.” Fascism is elitist in that it rejects equality and egalitarianism, and puts forth rule by a special cadre – an “elite.” It is collectivist in that the purpose of the movement is not to enrich the ruling elite nor does the emphasis on elitism promote selfish individualism. Rather, in principle at least, the movement serves the interest of the state/nation (Italian variant) or the “race” (German NS variant) or a “people” as an ethno-religious unit (Codreanu’s Legionary movement). The elite exists to serve the larger entity, rather than the opposite (plutocracy, oligarchy), and society is more or less collectively organized to confront “the other.”
Now, Salter criticizes (rightfully, in my opinion) Fascism-in-practice for its defective political organization – the Fuhrer/Duce principle being a key problem, in that if the leader is competent it’s great, but if not, there are no real checks or balances. However, I don’t see these political practices as being essential to the core of what fascism is about. For example, a system similar to that of the Roman Republic (two consuls, a Senate, tribunes of the people) – without mass voting or “Democracy” – could serve to provide the “elite” leadership in a “fascist” state, without relying on the autocratic rule of a single fuhrer.
The type of definition of “fascism” that people like Roger Griffin attempt to create is exactly as what I would describe as a definition that defies historical and etymological reality. They only serve the present system, which (as Tomislav Sunic among many other authors have pointed out) has a tendency to manipulate language and thus redefine terms like “fascism” to suit its needs in repressing its opponents. However, Griffin’s definition of the “fascist minimum” is so absurd and poorly thought out that it has rightly been critiqued even by other “antifascist” scholars.
However, Griffin’s definition of the “fascist minimum” is so absurd and poorly thought out that it has rightly been critiqued even by other “antifascist” scholars.
Any attempt to distill the ‘essence’ of a broad phenomenon (political, religious, ‘natural’ and so on) necessarily has to set aside certain peculiarities. It’s not at all clear why Griffin’s application of this principle to the study of fascism is so absurd or poorly thought out that it’s all but useless — not all clear why, that is, beyond the fact that it tends to ruffle purists’ feathers.
Take for example the distinction between conservative and fascist attitudes towards inequality and inferiority. While both conservatives and fascists believe people deeply unequal, conservatives seem more comfortable with this fact. When expedient to do so, they are content to deny or downplay their belief in inequality, and they appear to be more at ease with its existence in the world and in their own societies. In marked contrast, fascists have a tendency to despise the inferior, and to desire that at least the most severe manifestations of inferiority (if not ‘all’ such manifestations, to the extent this is physically possible) be eliminated from the earth. This doesn’t necessarily imply extermination, but of all political groupings fascists are by the far most likely to give such arguments a fair hearing. At the other end of the scale, while conservatives are typically content to merely maintain the inegalitarian status quo of the day or to allow inequality to manifest itself ‘naturally’ over time, fascists are fiercely and urgently determined to scale ever greater heights — many would, if pressed, define doing so as the very meaning of life — and are resolved to permit nothing to deter them from trekking this ‘upward path.’ To include this distinction in one’s formulation of a fascist minimum is not to say that every single fascist in every time and every place shares it to the exact same degree; it’s only to say that it’s prevalent among the political grouping one is describing as fascist. If it’s accurate, how, exactly, is it ‘absurd’ to include this distinction in one’s formulation of a fascist minimum?
Verlis, I have the impression that some people here are never going to let go of Griffin’s claims about “Fascism” no matter what or how much I say, and to critique Griffin’s work in a satisfactory way would probably require at least a large essay, but I will make a brief comment. I am not some mere “purist” when it comes to defining terms; I think, rather, that I am someone trying to avoid the exaggerated and unjust broadening of the meaning of terms. Maybe I have tendency towards “purism” (but then, one can ask what exactly is wrong with being “purist,” since it only implies a love for accuracy?), but I actually think the attempt to create a generic definition of the term “Fascism” with minimum characteristics is not in itself absurd. If someone identifies the key general characteristics of Mussolini’s Fascism and then compares other groups of the time which are similar to Italian Fascism, one can justifiably argue for the existence of a “generic Fascism.” But, as you well know, this is not really what Griffin does; he does not simply compare people such as Jose Antonio to Mussolini and say that they can both be called “Fascist,” but rather he proceeds to create a definition that is so vague and general that it goes well beyond reasonable boundaries.
Griffin is the very person who will attempt to distinguish “Conservatives” as well as certain radical democratic nationalists from “Fascists,” yet then at the same time insistently try to group the “New Right” and its representatives such as Alain de Benoist under the label “Fascist” (and I hardly need to point out why “New Right” intellectuals’ thought is extremely different from Fascism since they normally advocate a certain type of democracy and oppose the implementation of key characteristics of the Fascist state [and we should not forget that the basic Fascist concept of the State is a key defining characteristic of “Fascism” in any sense]). When we remember that the term “Fascist” originally referred only (and I stress the term “only”) to Mussolini’s group, and that thus the prime example of Fascism in history should be taken as Italian Fascism, we see the absurdity of what people like Griffin do. This is really nothing but a misuse of the term “Fascist” (and we further see its absurdity when we take into consideration the history as well as other scholars’ definitions of this term). Yet I am not even sure why I should have put the effort to even make this comment, when anyone who has seen Griffin’s basic work on Fascism will know very well that he makes such problematic claims.
Lucian Tudor,
Perhaps you should write an article critiquing Roger Griffin’s work in depth, instead of criticizing it whenever it’s mentioned. You come across as having the motivation and ability to write such an article, so why not do it?
I think that you’re right that Griffin applies the concept of generic fascism too loosely to anti-liberal movements, even if he excludes historical para-fascist regimes and contemporary national populist movements.
A. James Gregor is especially critical of Griffin’s work. I believe he addresses it in some detail in his new introduction to the reprint of Interpretations of Fascism, as well as his more recent works.
I think that one thing that makes fascism so hard to define is that it has, as systems theorists would put it, “emergent properties.” This was noted by José Streel (La révolution du vingtième siècle [1942]), Maurice Bardèche (Qu’est-ce que le fascisme? [1961]), and Michel Schneider (Principes de l’action fasciste [1974]). Fascism could emerge from various forms of left-wing and right-wing anti-liberalism, guided by an empiricism and a pragmatism of a revolutionary character.
Fascism is sometimes identified with “petty statism,” but as Michel Schneider remarks: “Fascism does not conceive nationalism as a goal, but as the axis of its activity. It is a springboard towards the European and social revolution. Nationalism is a moment in the evolution of fascism.” Indeed, Europeanism is a key theme of neo-fascist thinkers such as Oswald Mosley, Francis Parker Yockey, Jean Thiriart, Maurice Bardèche, and Adriano Romualdi. The political project of fascism is ultimately one of continental and civilizational proportions.
@ Ted:
This is exactly, exactly what I believe.
@ Daybreaker way above:
Nope: it was Franco’s heir-apparent King Juan Carlos who did that, and see how the Spaniards are committing self-disembowelment since then. (Last time I was in Madrid I was shocked that a Amerind woman, an immigrant from Peru, told me she was working in a state-sponsored facility to bring Asian babies to lazy Spanish women who didn’t want to endure the pains of childbirth.)
Anyway, those who doubt that a modified version of fascism with two consuls is the only viable way, at least during the first century of the creation of an ethnostate with external enemies everywhere, could read this criticism to Alex Linder’s civil libertarian views on the subject.
Given my awareness as to what has happened to Spain (my parents being from there): is it really that bad as per your above statement? Have the Spanish women gone that far wrong? I can tell you that as far back as 1992 (yesterday really), I saw numerous situations that were ‘not Spanish’ shall we say!
“Last time I was in Madrid I was shocked that a Amerind woman, an immigrant from Peru, told me she was working in a state-sponsored facility to bring Asian babies to lazy Spanish women who didn’t want to endure the pains of childbirth.)”
That was the Amerind woman’s reasoning for bringing Asian babies into Spain or yours? I suspect that the true reason, leftist brainwashing about how cool adoption can be, is more the cause that fear of childbirth pain. That sounds like something a immigrant would say to show how ” superior” she is to the native Spaniards.
Thanks for a great article Matt.
“there’s a refreshing clarity to street activism that I suspect men who’ve only considered these issues in safer and more subtle contexts fail to appreciate. When you’re surrounded by barking Jews, rampaging minorities and immigrants, and shrieking feminists goading them on, all those refined angles, abstract quibbles, and logical points about double-standards evaporate away”.
I think this is very true, and with street activism there is also a possibility to show strength and courage in a way that will make more white people to want to be a part of this movement.
If you have not seen it I would like to draw your attention to the May Day in Sweden. Nationalists were organizing a May Day demonstration last year that gathered about 200 nationalists. The police were not prepared and the Marxists rioted and tried to stop the demonstration. The Marxists were fought back by disciplined nationalists. See a Marxist news clip (in English) from the day here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CFfc4UWzVB8
And a short clip from the nationalists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXh1_HGmwWw
When the nationalists had shown that they were not going to give in for the violence the rioting did not scare people away from this year’s demonstration. So the last year’s Marxist rioting and violence didn’t reduce the number of nationalists that participated this year, and on this year’s May Day there were closer to 300 nationalists demonstrating in the city of Jönköping, which is a classic stronghold for violent Marxists. The violence last year had put pressure on the police to be more prepared, so there was more police presence, and also fewer Marxists. The violent Marxists had discussed on their Internet forums that they would only loose on trying to stop nationalists that couldn’t be stopped, thus just giving the nationalists more attention in the media if they would be present, and on May Day they this year they were much fewer than last year. They didn’t managed to stop anything, some were arrested by the police, others were hospitalized after fighting the police (one was actually runned down by a charging police horse!), and there were once again a lot of media attention that this year could only show violent Marxists, and disciplined and happy nationalist that celebrated the Swedish workers.
A clip from the day can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdIKVU2K0Y&list=UU7TMGm3eYEacyLn0-AbuERA&index=1
So, Sweden is one example on how strength and discipline can give positive results when it comes to building a new superior alternative on the May Day.
One small suggestion.
Why not a policy that can be the best of how the NSDAP Cultural Moment’s precise self-definition of “National Socialism” would be defined today?
How about four words: “National Capitalism, Natural Socialism.”
When I lived in Miami, I had a Chilean friend who told me that when Marxists tried take over in Chile in the 1970s, General Pinochet spoke the only language Marxists understand. Rounded them up. Had them shot. No hand-wringing.
The scum in the video are too stupid to understand they’re acting as cannon fodder for Jewish and capitalist interests. And, yes, there are those themes again. Why does it always turn out that way? Jews and capitalists.
Regarding fascism, it is worth noting that the Marxists used violence, disruption and intimidation during Hitler and the National Socialist’s time, and they use the same tactics today.
Since street activism, National Socialism and Hitler are timely right now, I offer this Andrew Hamilton essay for those have not seen it.
If you have not seen it or perhaps don’t appreciate how NS can be relevant, read this essay!!!!
https://counter-currents.com/2012/06/hitler-as-orator/
I could not really relate to this protest even though I admire their willingness to be brave and put themselves in harm’s way. As would be the case with swastikas, I find the confederate flag to be just a quaint antique. In the minds of the masses it connotes things like slavery and carries all kinds of unnecessary baggage. As someone from Canada I did not get the feeling that they were fighting for me, or any principles that I could use here. I would contrast this with Bloc/ Generation Identitaire in France; they are contending for something simple and achievable in the future, the right to a national identity and all that that entails. For this reason I await their every move with breathless expectation.
I really think that if New rightists or whatever we might call ourselves are to start engaging in or supporting street protests, I think it is high time someone comes out with some new colours, symbols and slogans. The recycling of old ones will mainly confuse people.
Finally, many on the left are good people who are just misguided. They share many of our ideals albeit in a warped form, eg. community, economic democracy, concern for the environment/ nature, opposition to zionist war etc… It is incumbent on us to help them understand how these things can be achieved in real life. This requires a clear message written on a clean slate.
Let’s take a look at this comments thread. We start with an interesting and thought-provoking essay by Matt Parrott. We then descend into quibbling over definitions of fascism, praise of authors who are nothing more than recycled Hans Guenther (and the initial comment concerning them is wholly unrelated to the topic of the post), discussions of eugenics (which I strongly support by the way) also unrelated to the post…
And as we play in our isolated racialist sandbox, the “big boys” are promoting legislation that would further open the floodgates to yet more non-white immigration. Yes, I know – “immigration policy is irrelevant since the majority of births are already majority non-white.” True enough, but adding extra millions of coloreds – and worse, confusing whites that the only possible problems with this are that of legality or economics – isn’t going to help in bringing about the “ethnostate.” Which would lead to the next “movement” mantra – “worse is better.” Trouble is, it’s been getting worse for decades now, and white Americans won’t get off their fat asses to do anything except voting for “conservative Republicans” (you know, like McCain, Graham, Rubio, etc).
No, wait – we really don’t care about the masses, we are instead “trying to build an elite…through education.” Another time-worn “movement” assertion. That was Pierce’s entire rationale for his National Alliance. How did that turn out? Recent posts/comments here have discussed that tragedy in detail.
Why does the Left – objectively moronic and destructive – attract idealistic elites, especially the young, while the Right, particularly in America, attracts for the most part cranks and nutcases, while repelling the types of idealist elites they claim to want so desperately?
The Left has good marketing, good packaging – always has. Pure poison marketed as the sweetest ambrosia. The Left stands for Progress, the Future, Utopia, an Ideal – something to strive and die for. The Right? Confederate flags. Traditionalism. 19th century traditional physical anthropology. Fighting battles from a century ago. Kali yuga. Hyperboreans from Atlantis. Vaccination as the evil plot of “jew doctors” (gotta stop that flourinated water too – a commie plot against our precious bodily fluids!). The Federal Reserve! Moon landing hoax! Black helicopters! A return to our constitutional Republic!
It’s a shame when people on the side of the good expose themselves to disgust and ridicule through bad marketing, and an inability to say “no” to all the marginal personalities that flock to any dissident movement. Elites looking for something new come to a racial nationalist site and see all their preconceptions confirmed. They see SPLC rhetoric confirmed. They see past-looking folks with strange obsessions with grandiose plans for an ethnostate and no path to get there other than say “we need decades more education” (what folks were saying decades ago).
Truth be told, the only “Rightist” movements that attracted idealistic elites, including youths, were the REAL fascist movements (and, yes, I AM using Griffin’s palingenetic definition, since it neatly contrasts movements aimed at creating new societies from authoritarian para-fascist regimes aimed at preserving the power of established corrupt elites).
Am I being a hypocrite by looking towards the past? No, since “fascism” is not a set of specific ideas, not a specific past movement or program – it is a generalized model of conceptualizing sociopolitical realities and building a society, and it can have myriad new and fresh permutations. After all, “racialism” and “nationalism” themselves do not have to be “old” – and the Left has the ability to package its fundamental egalitarian utopias in new forms (then class, now race).
At some point, we need to break out of the sandbox. At some point, we need to stop with the same old ideas, same old authors, same old obsessions, same old preferences, and look to the Future and not to the Past.
I do not see that happening in ANY American-based pro-white website, project, or organization.
Well Mr Johnson has stated clearly that we need a greater emphasis on the Socialist part of National Socialism. And that Leftist strategy and tactics work, so lets use them. And at least the tactics part is beging to filter through to the greater Movement – look at the successful use of media by Matt Heimbach. We are lagging behind on a whole repackaging of course and you are right, that has to happen. But that doesn’t mean we leave behind our previous good ideas which were twisted by the enemy – such as physical racial differences. And we should be proud that we took the lead on healthy living before the Liberals ever touched it. These ideas aren’t crankish – they were mocked to scorn by the offical Media and most fell for it. And sure when society turns away, often the crankish hold on. But that doesn’t mean the cranks are wrong, only that they’re cranks. Truth is above such social dynamics. A crank often can’t tell the difference between a crankish idea and a good one – they like both since both are scorned. Thus the crank believes in perpetual motion and can be seen reading a book about UFO’s while eating his raw food.
You make some fair criticisms and some unfair ones, with little originality in both cases. That is OK though because as long as the issues are the topics are going to be the same. People have been saying “we need to get out of the sandbox” for decades. You know that is much easier said than done when it’s de facto illegal.
Ted, you are right to attack tendencies towards idiotic conspiracy theories and outdated ideas among right-wingers, but you contradict yourself when you then attack the need for more education. If we want right-wingers to have more sophisticated thought as well as to be able to recognize reject harmful or false strategies and ideas (and conspiracy theories too), then they need to have education. You can’t condemn stupidity and a lack of intelligence on the one hand, yet condemn those who want more education and intellectuality on the other hand.
So many strawmen, so little time!
Ted in blockquote:
“Worse is better” is the response of the self-selected impotence of cynicism.
That is also most emphatically NOT the NANR Perspective. A more mature formulation might be, “Worse, for the Old Order, can be the foundation for better, much damn better.”
The flood of non-Western aliens into what has become Mexico with snow does inspire the organic movement (small “m”) that has fled for their lives to the *ahem* North and West of California, and the Southwest. Yet, the possibility for “much damn better” is before them, if they can accept the possibilities offered by the Northwest Republic. That requires Adult thinking, a metapolitical framework, and a temporal bridge to the fulfillment of the metapolitical framework. Mr. Harold Covington has done the yeoman’s work in this, and your critique of the ethnostate is simply that; critique, lacking constructive criticism.
As the resident critic of Pierce, let me note that he stumbled across the truth with his speech on “White Zion.” I have constructively criticized the limits of Pierce’s speech; he wanted disconnected communities, easily neutralized by our enemies. His fault, in this case, was that he dreamed too small. Harold Covington has it right. Give our Race the greatest of goals, and we will surpass them. The greatest technological feat in history, Man on the Moon, and back, safely, in a decade, with 1960’s technology? Done.
And, the “entire rationale” for the National Alliance degenerated form its original conception under Rockwell, the National YOUTH Alliance, a political system for developing the young men as political soldiers. Pierce killed than one in the cradle. Political soldiers, trained in political organization. Can’t have THAT, can we? Blame Pierce, and rightly so.
The retreat into the warmth and safety of a false Yesterday has been so common an element of the failures of Movement Past, it is almost as if they were “nudged” and suggested into doing the safe, harmless ritual behavior of those who dared not develop a “bare metal” system. This is the avoidance of Adult r3esoonsibility, and has been thwarted by all of the false chocies put before us, many subsidized by our enemies.
The Old Right might have won the arguments at an intellectual level, but the Left wins the arguments for the heart. We think with our minds, but we ACT with our hearts pulling us forward. The Right offered precious little, save comfortable abstractions, that made people feel good about supporting their beliefs. As well, that was the time (the 1960’s – 70’s) of the Culture War in American shifting to full-out Apollo versus Dionysus. Ayn Rand wrote a great piece by that title, and it is worth reviewing. As we have been increasingly infantilized, Dionysus has won, for a season. Apollo has found new homes in Singapore, and Bangalore.
Not quite the case. We DO needs decades of education, to counter a century of indoctrination. Yet, we can self-selected the founding Aristocracy with the proper analytical framework to self-organize around. The Northwest Republic offers it. Leave the losers to “White Zion.” Covington offers us a White Valhalla, and a Newer Atlantis.
Yet, education is a means to an end, and not an end unto itself. The settlers at Jamestown could not have imagined their little colony would grow to dwarf Mother England, and go to the Moon, and back, as a side adventure to all else going on in the country at the time. The settlers at Plymouth Rock also has the same shortcoming, but they and their posterity discovered an overarching metapolitical framework that succeeded in generation wealth, while the Jamestown settlers cared only for plunder.
I agree that we need to “break out of the sandbox.” We need accept the best of the “old ideas” – like, say, Racial Sovereignty – and transform them into the appropriate frameworks for our time, in the service of our Race.
YOU can make it happen, starting today, starting where you are. Sending money to counter-currents each and every month, is an excellent first step. (Mr. Covington has done much of the heavy lifting for the rest of us.)
If you can’t do that much…
What’s your excuse?
Fourmyle of Ceres, I just have to thank you. I can always count on you for being on message. I may skip other people’s comments, but not yours.
I come here for the education. Displacing the lies that I have been taught is my goal. I think it is working as I ferret out a lie and replace it with truth and with truth comes confidence which is a prerequisite for engaging others without malice or feeling threatened.
Thank you.
That was a great protest, because it illustrates what Jonathon Bowden said a few times in speeches and interviews.
Bowden said that in the 60s, the conservatives in Britain were laughing at what these crazy leftists were doing. Bowden commented that a big weakness of the right was that we do not take these people seriously enough. These leftists, as childish, stupid, and crazy as they seem, are completely and deadly serious. Most on the right laugh at these people, and that’s a weakness of ours, not a strength.
I would not engage these people in any kind of “fair fight.” We will need plenty of “unfair advantages.”
The right is finally taking them more seriously ideologically. But in the field of action, it will take some time to organize. I certainly would be careful about meeting these loonies on their turfs, rallies and universities. The leftists seem capable of anything and highly irrational.
The internet seems to be “The Great White Whale” at the moment and you should play on strengths.
Good job Matt and Matt!
One of my good friends has bravely organized events like this on college campuses. It’s unreal the sort of opposition that exists from young white people (on simple issues like immigration even!); I’d say the anti-racist crowd overshadows our side by 95-5. It’s overwhelmingly totalitarian on college campuses.
The youth, at this point, are about as far away from our position as Miami is to Beijing. WN needs to target young people and that takes money and commitment from elders.
I think it’s safe to say that in the good ol’ days, our ancient Aryan forefathers would have labeled these Reds “outcastes,” and consider even their touch polluting. This video is the perfect example of why that would be.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment