Herman Husband, Eighteenth Century White Nationalist PioneerSpencer J. Quinn
To be ethnocentric and white in the West these days amounts to posing a challenge to the corrupt established order. Either as tacit spectators or active participants in our demographic and cultural struggles, such people threaten the purported existential notions of our leaders: those of liberal democracy and racial egalitarianism. Our leadership’s true existential notions, however, may be something a little more time-honored, such as money and power. Still, an ideological edge remains, one that is both dysgenic and anti-white.
A near-parallel to today’s disputes can be found in the life of Herman Husband, the eighteenth-century farmer and pamphleteer who served as the spiritual and intellectual guide of the ill-fated Regulator movement in the backwoods of North Carolina just prior to the American Revolution.
Born in Maryland, Husband moved to Orange County in the North Carolina colony in 1755, intending to become a prosperous planter. A recently-converted Quaker, he also was searching for greater religious freedoms. Husband was part of a mass influx of hardscrabble colonists which would upset the political balance in North Carolina to the point of violence in the following years.
What became known as the North Carolina backwoods was essentially a rocky, red clay region which sat between the wide alluvial plain to the east and the more mountainous region to the west. There were enough streams and flora to sustain smaller farms, but not nearly at the level in the east, where the vast majority of slaveholding estates could be found. By the mid-eighteenth century, the backwoods was still somewhat rough and untamed, just the like the tough, independent souls who colonized it. Unfortunately for them, the established and wealthy settlers to the east, who were set in their Anglican ways, didn’t take kindly to hordes of Germans, Welsh, Moravians, and Lord knows who else flooding into their colony with all their Dissenting religions. Even worse, the corrupt political class soon learned that these newcomers were easy marks, and took full advantage of them.
Historian John Bassett put it very nicely:
The disadvantage was that the continued effectiveness of government depended too much on the personal honesty of these officeholders. In many of the eastern counties this state of affairs seems to have worked well. But in the remote sections there is much evidence that the officers were selfish and mercenary, and that they were mutually leagued together to forward their own selfish ends. It was to try to clean out this Augean stable that Regulation had its existence.
The Regulator movement’s grievances can be boiled down to excessive taxation, sheriffs embezzling money from the public treasury, and what the Regulators called “extortionate fees.” This last complaint referred to the astonishing practice of court officers who colluded to make excellent livings on their fees alone. For example, simply for entering a judgment bond on the docket and executing it, which was a one-minute task, a court clerk could charge a yeoman farmer a fee greater than what he could earn in many days. Further, lawyers and other court officials would deliberately postpone or prolong cases in order to extract more fees from the people.
Another happenstance which conspired against the backwoods farmers was the scarcity of money. With the Crown withdrawing most of its taxes from the colonies in coin or gold, with Parliament forbidding the colonies from issuing their own legal tender, and with such a large number of new colonists emigrating to North Carolina, laying hands on cash was no easy endeavor. One particular scam involved a sheriff showing up unexpectedly at the doorstep of a farmer whose taxes were in arrears. Not having the cash on hand, the farmer would be forced to rush to a neighbor’s home to secure a loan while the Sheriff distrained some of the farmer’s property and then eloigned to the county courthouse along a different path from which he came. The farmer was then forced to race the sheriff there. If he lost, he may have ended up watching the Sheriff sell his property to the highest bidder. Apparently, this was an all too common practice.
The backwoods farmers may not have had much of a chance against their oppressors if they hadn’t possessed a genius among them named Herman Husband. While never a member of the Regulators per se, Husband served as their guide and mouthpiece against the agents of the Crown and their opportunistic local representatives. He served on various committees to speak on behalf of the Regulators, and was twice elected to the North Carolina Assembly. Hard-working, honest, and ambitious, Husband most likely became familiar with the art of pamphleteering through his correspondence with Benjamin Franklin; his pamphlets had such a rousing effect on the populace that he was often considered guilty of insurrection just for writing them. Oddly, he claimed authorship of only a few of them. It must have been an open secret in the 1760s that Herman Husband was the ghost writer of revolution.
In what is perhaps his most famous tract, “An Impartial Relation of the First and Causes of the Recent Differences in Public Affairs” (from 1770), he writes:
But as these practices are contrary to law, it is our duty to put a stop to them before they quite ruin our country and before we become slaves to these lawless wretches, and hug our chains of bondage and remain contented under these accumulated calamities.
I believe there are few of you who have not felt the weight of these iron fists. And I hope there are none of you but will lend a hand towards bringing about this necessary work (a reformation). And in order to bring it about effectually, we must proceed with circumspection, not fearful, but careful.
First, let us be careful to keep sober — do nothing rashly — act with deliberation.
Secondly, let us do nothing against the known established laws of our land — that we appear not as a faction endeavoring to subvert the laws, and overturn the system of our government. But let us take care to appear what we really-are, subjects by birth, endeavoring free to recover our lost native rights, and to bring them down to the standards of the law.
A leader Herman Husband was not, however. When it came time for action, he counseled restraint and was not always heeded. Nor did he ever take part in violence. When the Regulators seized control of the county courthouse in Hillsborough in September 1770, terrorized the court officers, and did quite a bit of physical damage to boot, they had a chance to effect permanent change in the colony — but they were leaderless and lacked direction. Instead of defending what they had captured by force, they decided to go home. According to Husband’s biographer Mary Lazenby, Husband “never contemplated any defense but an intellectual one.”
This mistake allowed Governor William Tryon to raise an army and crack down on the Regulators once and for all. The struggle culminated in the Battle of Alamance in May 1771. The Regulators, who lacked a military commander, were unprepared for pitched battle against trained troops and were quickly routed.
Although Husband took no part in the battle and had attempted only to prevent it, the authorities intended to hang him nonetheless. He was forced to flee North Carolina and lived the remainder of his days in western Pennsylvania, where he carved out a home from the wilderness and brought his family to live with him. As a homespun philosopher, Husband embraced the American Revolution and was active in local politics for many years.
As an old man in 1794, he must have been overcome with déjà vu when he represented his county in talks regarding the Whiskey Rebellion. As one would expect, he counseled restraint and refused to sanction violence. But due to his reputation with the Regulators and the fact that he had participated in erecting a liberty pole in defiance of Alexander Hamilton’s excise tax on whiskey, he was one of the people the federal government was searching for when they finally took action.
Husband was arrested and sentenced to death. Intercessions from friends secured his release, but after six months in prison, his health had deteriorated. He died in a tavern outside of Philadelphia while he was on his way home. He was 70 years old.
Not only did Husband’s vision of the North Carolina backcountry demand a free citizenry and the absence of a corrupt and predatory government, it also demanded ethnocentrism for white farmers. What is less known about Husband is that he was an early white advocate — a prophet, even.
A letter he wrote in 1755 to Lord Granville, the King’s proprietor of northern North Carolina, outlined his plan of “a new government of liberty” in the backwoods. As we would expect, Husband complained of the nascent political machinations that were making it difficult for migrant farmers like himself to acquire land. He also took religious freedom seriously, which for him was tinged with a streak of anti-clericalism. In the letter, he fretted over the North Carolina authorities’ recent expansion of the Anglican Church, and was particularly offended that the Governor had awarded outlandish salaries to Anglican rectors.
Most relevant to our times, however, was Husband’s reaction to the threat Negro slavery posed to the free white farmer. As an ancient institution, Husband had no moral objection to slavery. Instead, he correctly feared that the enslavement of blacks in the New World would deprive free whites of land and work, and that if left unchecked the “destructive canker” of slavery would eventually make North Carolina resemble the West Indies. Slavery adversely impacted poor whites, he noted.
He also recoiled at men who were ill-suited to farming — his profession — becoming influential upon the labor of others. While he had respect for Native Americans and lamented the way in which wealthy whites were displacing them in order to build slaveholding plantations, he envisioned a country for whites only. He recognized quite clearly that although the Negro was “of human shape and understanding,” he was “forriegn by one half both in nature, shapes, and coulour” and was indeed the “unaturall ennemy” of whites. Herman Husband peered into the future — our present — and saw nothing good resulting from the importation of blacks.
Here is the passage from this letter which deals with Husband’s aversion to slavery and the Negro (emphasis mine; editorial brackets are by A. Robert Ekirch):
The first stun that I got was on a discovery of some of our northern men who had got a little money was curruptted already from that true Christian and Brittish disposition of encourageing our own poor, but are falling into that practice of buying Negro slaves by which poor labouring white men are discouraged, and consequently the white people cannot nither encrease nor thrive where the treasure of a country is carried from them to purchase those blacks. Whereas if this custom was prevented there would not be only a white person employed and encouraged to settle for every black so bought, but that money which goes to purchase those blacks would be put into their hands for their labour, wherewith they soon would become able to procure a farm to themselves and thereby become able to employ more poor; and those places not only thrive to his majesties enterest and the enterest of any propriator, as expieriance hath shewn, but to the enterest of the publik and possitively twould be the enterest of every privite person, as is loudly confessed by the almost universsall consent of all them who have had triall and bought of those slaves, for instead of becoming an ease to himself and famaly the more any man purchases of them the more trouble, care, discontent, and uneasiness he brings on himself and famaly, besides the dismall consequences that must unavoidably follow (unless Providance interpose in more then an ordanary maner), in a few ages of the white peoples being quite deminished where they now abound and their neighbours obnoxious to an unaturall ennemy.
For though the white people on this continant do encrease and the native Endians decrease, yet the Negroes are imported in greater numbers and do encrease two to one to what the white people do, and unless the white people take to beat out their brains as they do the piggs when over stocked, as the Egyptians did the Hebrews, they must unavoidably (according to the naturall course of things) wholy over run in a serious [series] of time the whole provinces; and that in a little time as within one hundred years where they first took root have encreased so fast as to be from two to one and in some places io to one, if not in some of the Islands 20 to one. By the time they come to such a pitch on the continant, as they are already in most of the Islands, it will be morrally impossible to govern them, as allass how many thousands daily obscond from their masters in those little spotts of islands, which never could be got again had they such wide wildernesses to run to as there is on the continant. Witness Jamaca where the white people are obligued to come to terms with them, and how many ten thousand such places there is on this continant to run to is known to every enquirer.
And even were they like cows and horses in respect to look[ing] for freedom and liberty, yet being of human shape and understanding [they] are not to be stoped from breeding or destroyed when overstocked with them. And as lands being capable of maintaining but such a number of inhabitants, for each of those Negroes the publik is deprived of a white person, a white person deprived of a livelihood, the king of a subject, a soldiar, etc., besides the ruination of the lands inhabited by them, as their masters becomeing in generall above husbandry affairs employ over seers for such a share who care as much for the preservation of the lands as the Negroes and both as much care that way as a storm of floods and riseing waves. All this might be foreseen by a studious person but tis here spoke from knowledge taught by wofull expieriance.
The parallels between Herman Husband’s life and outlook to today’s White Nationalism should be quite clear. Both oppose corrupt, anti-white power structures; both care sincerely for whites as a people, especially the white working class; and, most importantly, both understand the paramount importance of race realism and ethnocentrism. Only this can lead us to the point of no return:
Then in the greatest earnestness let me once more press it home to you to consider and let not a little pomp and glory accruing to the Affrican Co. cause the utter ruination of your largest dominions, not inferior to Europe which contains many kingdoms.
However trifling this may seam, it will one time or other be the exercise of the whole nation either in timely stoping such growing evill or when time is past in lamenting that which cannot be recalled.
The race troubles Husband predicted nearly 270 years ago have all come to pass. White people have become “deminished” in America. Blacks have “wholy over run” entire provinces. It has proven to be “morrally impossible to govern them.” And blacks do behave towards whites as “obnoxious to an unaturall enemy.”
It is uncanny how accurate Husband was!
Sadly, there was an additional wrinkle in Husband’s life which I hope won’t become a parallel to ours. The Regulator movement failed not only because of a lack of hands-on leadership, but also due to a lack of civic, religious, and racial concerns among his own backcountry people. None but the most “publik-spirited people,” like Husband himself, were moved to act according to the interests and welfare of whites as a whole. Most were more preoccupied with “private enterest.” When this private interest was demonstrably threatened by government excess, as in the case of the Regulator movement, they acted. When the impingement wasn’t so demonstrable — as in the case of Husband’s perspicacious concern with blacks and slavery — they didn’t. And the people eventually suffered as a result.
The only way to reverse this suffering moving forward is for whites to embrace this “publik spirit” as conscious, self-identifying whites and follow in mind and in spirit the worthy example set by Herman Husband.
Mary Elinor Lazenby, Herman Husband, a Story of His Life (Washington, DC: Old Neighborhoods Press, 1940).
John S. Bassett, “The regulators of North Carolina (1765-1771)” in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1894 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1895), pp. 141-212.
A. Roger Ekirch, “‘A New Government of Liberty’: Hermon Husband’s Vision of Backcountry North Carolina, 1755,” in The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Oct., 1977), pp. 632-646.
Richard Lyman Bushman, The American Farmer in the Eighteenth Century: A Social and Cultural History (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2018). (My review here).
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
The Honorable Cause: A Review
George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years
The Dakota Territory’s Indian Wars During the Civil War, Part 2
How Much Would Slavery Reparations Actually Cost?
Documenting the Decline
The Psychology of the Politically Correct
On White Normie “Brainwashing”: A Reply to Kevin MacDonald, Paul Craig Roberts, & Other Dissidents, Part 2
Right vs. Left: What Does It All Mean?
The more I think about it the more I see the original National Socialism, which is the beacon of all nationalism, as the ‘narcissism-of-small-differences’ amongst Central Europeans. There were so few blacks in Europe, let alone Europe, at the time, so this philosophy was not directed at nonwhites besides in passing. It was instead exaggeratedly underscored far more in Europe than it ever was in America on the superiority of the ubermenschen juxtaposed with the untermenschen because race was a given in America, which is where segregation and reservations were first formulated, whereas most Germans and Poles are largely indistinguishable since these unified states have never been as homogenous as many believe.
By contemporary metrics, Germany was an ethno-state even during the peak of the Weimar Republic because it was always over 99% white European. So it was like the NSDAP were trying to sell much greater deviation than was even possible because so much of it was arbitrary. National Socialism could not simply rest on the JQ because every other European nationality had its own JQ, which itself was so unifying that the alleged events in WWII were mostly carried out by conquered nations themselves. Even then, they were so assimilated in Germany that most Germans could not differentiate them without mandatory markers and rote propaganda.
Nationalism functions almost tolerantly (modus vivendi) the greater the genetic divergence, whereas the closer they are genetically the more fractious the conflict becomes, such as Ukraine vs Russia, Serbia vs Croatia/Bosnia/Slovenia and Catholic vs Protestant in Northern Ireland. So this is why Europeans are still so baffled by the concept of ‘white nationalism’ flourishing in their former colonies even as they are now being inundated by the same Third World refuse. The same pattern occurs in Eastern Europe as the American South with great variance amongst its minority. Gypsies are present everywhere yet never interact with Europeans, while blacks are confined to their rural/urban ghettos in America with minimal miscegenation. Even in Australia and Canada the aboriginals stay in their own regions.
For whatever reason, I find the assertions advanced in this comment difficult to decipher. Are you European, perhaps, with a primary language other than English? Your grammar, ironically, is fine, but your argument has eluded me.
Pardon me, but I am new to White Nationalism, and had a hard time getting through your post and actually stopped halfway through. Could you please explain to me the difference between ‘Nationalism’ (White or otherwise) and ‘National Socialism’, stopped me in my reading at the first mention of it in your post.
As I understand National Socialism, it was something that Hitler dreamed up. I think Hitler had quite a few good ideas, but trying to take over all of Europe, including European Russia, and as well, trying also to take over Northern Africa, doomed it all to failure.
So, what was he intending, and how does it relate to National Socialism.
Further, just within our own Congress, we have one blatant Socialist — whether a Nationalist or not, though hardly likely — in the person of Bernie Sanders, followed closely by Elizabeth Warren and the disheveled ‘Squad’ of foreigners yipping on our TVs from time to time.
Could you unscramble the many meanings of Socialism for me. I tried reading Marx’s masterpiece “The Communist Manifesto”, but laid it down at the first plank: “No ownership of private property” which includes land and houses, just plain cash in your pocket, your wife’s diamond rings , and your grandfather’s stash of gold coins, and the ability to allow your kids to inherit those rings, those coins and that property; and, the Manifesto continues, no private ownership of the ‘means of production’ — though I wonder if socialist nonsense goes as far as confiscating your gardening tools which might be used to grow potatoes to feed yourself and family, and perhaps sell a few to neighbors?
In the White society in America where I live, all of those things are possible and normal. What would Socialism have to say about White standards of living? I am happy to call myself a White Nationalist because these are all standards I would hope all Whites might want to live by. If not, why set ourselves apart.
Sorry if this seems scrambled, but I just can’t understand Socialism, National or not.
Socialism in the usual sense – including Communism – basically means that people work for the government rather than private businesses. (In practice, that necessitates the economy being centrally planned.) In the NS sense, by “socialism” they meant basically a priority to focus on the interests of the common people. IMO that was a mistake, because ever since then, they’ve had to explain that they’re not Communists.
Thank you for your explanation. I had thought right along that the Leader’s intent was to help get the German people of the Weimar Republic out of the hands of the moneychangers who were trying all sorts of underhanded dealings to gain farmland from struggling farmers who were caught up in ‘usurious loans’ from the moneylenders. I have always thought that was one of the main causes of the ‘holocaust’ that caused these moneylenders and their families and associates to be ’rounded up’ and accused of crimes against the state. We all know what happened then. I’m still trying to piece all this together. I also understand that much the same thing is happening in Ukraine now.
Another excellent rescue of a (for me) forgotten but important figure. We must be grateful to Spencer Quinn for doing the research and work of remembrance. And I appreciate learning a new word – “eloign” – a useful descriptor to have on hand in a socialist age.
Thank you, Lord Shang. I am glad you liked the essay. Yes, eloign is an interesting word. I wonder if HG Wells had it in mind when he coined the term ‘Eloi’ in The Time Machine.
>> Alexandra O. wrote:
” As I understand National Socialism, it was something that Hitler dreamed up. I think Hitler had quite a few good ideas, but trying to take over all of Europe, including European Russia, and as well, trying also to take over Northern Africa, doomed it all to failure. ” <<
I’m not really new to the subject, but as I see it, Hitler did not really have the choice of fighting or not fighting. Germany was stuck between a rock and a hard place without many good options. Hitler chose to fight even without the best odds because there was still a possibility of winning by not losing, and the Nazis best represented the will of the German people. And certainly so with respect to Communism/Capitalism.
An existential war on some level was inevitable just by Hitler returning German institutions to Germany as an organic whole ─ in contrast to as an economic colony dominated by international financial elites.
Hitler did a very good job trying not to have to fight battles that Germany could not win, and avoiding with due diligence getting involved in another World War. Ultimately he failed in that, but I don’t think that doing nothing was ever an option either ─ and if Germany really had become part of the Soviet bloc, it could have ended very badly, indeed, and for the West, particularly with the inevitable addition of nuclear weapons and what has been called the “Iron Age of Total Warfare.” Danzig may not have been worth 60 million dead, but “it takes two to tango,” and that is a false dilemma anyway.
I also disagree with the prevailing thesis that Hitler tried to fight a War of Extermination against the Jews and Slavs ─ or had any excessive designs for lands not already settled in large part by ancestral Germans.
As far as National Socialism itself, the first thing to know is that the Nazis utterly rejected Marxism.
If they used the term “Socialist” for themselves, they meant in a Prussian or “ethical” context, as Bismarck would have been inclined ─ and Spengler actually used the term “ethical socialism” in his Decline of the West (1918) to contrast the Prussian idea with Marxist economic theories.
Marxism demands radical egalitarianism, and it tends towards a theory of history dominated by economics, and specifically the Class Struggle itself.
Although, I think economic motives and factors are important to history and socio-political concepts, these are not the only useful theories by far. And Utopia should be reserved for Heaven and Hell rather than things of this world.
National Socialism utterly rejects the Class-Struggle.
National Socialism focuses on and seeks to organize around Nation and Race (or an ethnic and linguistic core of some kind).
Hitler despised the petty-nationalisms that pitted, for example, Catholic Bavarians against Protestant Prussians.
Hitler’s version of German Nationalism included ethnic German Austrians but not the polyglot and centrifugal colonialism of his native Hapsburg Empire that sought diversity at the expense of its German racial core. Slavs were not, in the main, Germans. And rootless cosmopolitans like Jews certainly were not.
However, Hitler and Himmler were not opposed to organizing a kind of de facto pan-Europeanism that could crusade against something so viscerally alien to all of them as Jewish Bolshevism and the Soviet Union.
The term “Nazi” is in fact slang pronunciation in German for “National” in National Socialist.
Many older Germans tend to dislike Americanisms, but Joseph Goebbels for one used the colloquial term “Nazi” with great affection such as “Wir Nazis,” or We Nazis. For example, in his diaries, Goebbels refers to people he is mildly criticizing in terms such as “he is no real Nazi.”
In this case, Goebbels did not think that Austrian-born Party comrade Arthur Seyss-Inquart (later hanged at Nuremberg by the Victors) who was the wartime governor of the occupied Netherlands, was dealing harshly enough with wartime dissidents in this particular passage. So Seyss-Inquart was not really a “Nazi” or one of us in Goebbels’ private rejoinder. However, another “real” Nazi besides Goebbels might make the exact opposite case of any particular wartime policies in occupied lands.
Anyway, the Nazis saw the role of the State being to vigorously promote the interests of the Nation and Race ─ and they absolutely sought to eliminate Marxist class conflict in order to heal the organic whole and thereby to build and strengthen the economy.
The various economic classes were all important to the idea of the Nation-State conceived as a corporal organism. Class Warfare was ultimately a symptom of bodily disease ─ and definitely not a means to progress or advance that political and social organism holistically in some unending supposed quest to bring about whatever kind of impossible Utopia.
Marxism is utopian and built upon quasi-religious rationalizations. By contrast, National Socialism advances the organic corporal ideal of the State and the Nation, and promotes the concept of the Will of the People as a race or ethnicity, and not as competing sets of economic classes, nor some other interests, let alone vague Enlightenment abstractions.
Americans have been taught to fetishize certain concepts like Liberty, and that the government itself is the source of problems and conflict; however, this was not necessarily the idea that the more nationalistic and isolationist of the Founding Fathers like Washington and Hamilton believed.
They believed in a strong National government with a strong economic foundations; plus, they had a great suspicion for “entangling alliances,” and they eschewed quasi-religious quests for “monsters to destroy.”
In Madisonian terms, pluralism meant that factions and interests balance out and ignite when exposed to the fresh oxygen of open-debate. Governments are expected to be weak and therefore incapable of mischief. The best government is thus the one capable of governing, but with the least governance. Nobody minds if the proverbial carriage of the State is mired in a bog with competing teams of horses pulling on each side in opposite directions.
That is to say they don’t mind if and when it doesn’t matter. But if half of the country is unemployed, or when under siege, or even being demographically displaced, then it definitely does matter.
Limited governance is not the kind of proactive leadership that the Federalists or the Nazis would have wanted to end systemic problems such as depressions, and certainly this is not a way to successfully fight wars.
Early Federal symbols made great use of the FASCES ─ the symbol where individual tribal sticks are bound together in a Union of strength and purpose, with an axehead mounted at the top of the bundle as a symbol of National authority. Each tribe retains its individuality but is bound to the others and adopts a strong national identity as well.
This is where the term Fascism comes from. The Lincoln Memorial statue has the rustic Railsplitter with his arms resting upon two Fasces ─ although I think the Great Emancipator was dead wrong in arguing that the seceding states did not have legal authority to leave the Union (as ill-advised as slavery and secession was). If they once had the right to form that Union in the first place in Hamilton and Washington’s day, the States had the right to leave it.
Another thing is that the frontiers of the European continent developed in a very different way than the frontiers of the North American continent. I don’t think that Jeffersonian Democracy would have ever been an option for countries like Germany ─ and Bismarck and Hitler understood this.
Briefly, an example of a familiar “Fascist” idea where class conflict can be ameliorated in the truly public interest was embodied in some early ideas of FDR’s New Deal.
For example, the 1935 Wagner Act legalized collective bargaining by allowing an alphabet agency of the government, the NLRB, to certify a Union Shop for collective bargaining purposes based on an election of the workers involved. And then the parties would settle on a labor contract for a particular term. If further bargaining disputes arose between Management and Labor, the NLRB could act to facilitate arbitration in the interests of the National whole ─ both the interests of factory Workers and factory Owners, both being organically part of this national whole. Strikes ultimately benefit no one.
This principle still works to some extent today, and was an idea from Fascist Italy and NS Germany that was used to great success to restore economic function and to help end the Depression in those countries.
In the German case, the Red-dominated Unions were banned entirely and workers then joined an NS Labor Front to represent their economic interests with Capital in the national interest. This accomplished the same purpose as resolving the conflicts between Labor and Management in the interests of the organic whole of the Nation-State and Race.
Although many New Deal schemes were failures and ruled Unconstitutional ─ nor did they end the Depression, the Wagner Act was a rare success in that it greatly improved Workers’ lives and reduced class-warfare and the Communist domination of Labor, which was less of a threat in the United States than Europe
These are not really new ideas. I first started discussing things like Federalism and National Socialism as a High School kid in the late 1970s with people who marched with George Lincoln Rockwell.
Another key feature of this is how the Holocaust (then a relatively new coinage) fits into all of it. Short answer: the world and the economy and the media does not and should not revolve around the Jews.
I don’t have all the answers but I do strongly believe that more discussion is better than less discussion. Censorship and orthodoxy will never lead us to the Truth.
I hope to be proven wrong in my lifetime, but my criticism of most modern WN Movement politics is that all they ever do is talk about their careers welding trailer hitches ─ shave their heads and collect edgy tattoos ─ and then go on hoisting endless mugs of suds. And anonymous and “edgy” youthful podcasters are not much better.
This is not the vision of disciplined ex-soldiers that Hitler had to work with ─ and to a lesser extent Rockwell, who before his assassination was at least able to deliver WN speeches on University campuses, which is almost unheard of today.
Thanks! I immediately remembered our interview. I always enjoy reading an article about forgotten figures from you. This type of article is your forte. Maybe you could publish a book of these forgotten figures, something like Kerry Bolton’s book: Artists of The Right. Have you read this book?
Thanks , I’ve just been searching for information about this subject for a long time and yours is the best I have came upon so far.
However, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you positive about the supply?
My blog :: Erthand CBD Gummies Reviews
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.
Edit your comment