Counter-Currents
Theodore Roosevelt, a President who successfully used state power for positive ends.
1,990 words
Recently, Martinez Politics, whose commentary I usually enjoy, assumed a strong stance against fascism. Here are a few snippets from his Telegram posts on this topic:
Same end goal: “everything in the State, nothing outside the State” aka Communism.
Fascism says the State is supreme and you cannot rebuke it. There’s no reason to believe that only means specific states that you selectively choose to be loyal to, but all States. . . . But the people touting this Supreme Statist ideology don’t apply any of these standards consistently, but selectively/tactically, because they don’t actually believe in these principles at all. If they’re only applied selectively, then they’re not real principles but tactics.
It is surprising how many people on the Right have fallen into the inaccurate leftist Bernie Bro/Chomskyite worldview where they think corporations that have no power to
1) initiate force
2) tax the populace
3) print money
. . . is somehow more powerful than the State which has all of those powers.
A fundamental distinction should be made between what I will call capital-F “Fascism” and lower case-f “fascism.” Capital-F Fascism is indeed “everything in the State, nothing outside the State,” with a perfect synthesis of state and corporate power.
By contrast, lower case-f fascism is more of an aesthetic than an ideology. It is not particularly concerned with the dismal science of economics, which it correctly sees as merely a means and not as an end in itself. It is epitomized by the anarcho-fascist commune of Fiume, in which the government’s functions included poetry and fireworks; or by the Futurist Manifesto’s values or speed, youth, and militarism. This fascism could be summarized in a single word: life.
Capital-F Fascism is a means, and lower-case fascism is the ultimate end. The end goal of Communism 1.0 was a materialist workers’ paradise in which death and dissolution are a means, and the end goal of contemporary “woke” Communism is dissolution and death, even if their stated goal is different. We can therefore rebuke the assertion that fascism and Communism have the same end goals. In fact, their goals are diametrically opposed.
But despite the fact that one is a means and the other an ends, “Fascism” and “fascism” are not wholly compatible with one another. Julius Evola observed that many of the Italian Fascists who had been idealists in the beginning ended up as boring party apparatchiks.
This fact would appear to support Martinez’s position. But it does not. Fascism was a means that went too far and became an end in itself. As with many issues, this issue can be easily resolved through Aristotle’s golden mean. Anything taken to an unnatural extreme becomes a warped parody of its former self. Additionally, a great amount of slack must be given to the Italian Fascists, who found themselves overwhelmed by hostile powers and who had less time to realize their dreams than the Communists ended up with.
Additionally, if fascism and Communism had had the same goals, it would have been much less likely that they would have fought — and continue to fight each other — so vehemently. The Communists would have allied with the Falange against the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Many of the Sturmabteilung had originally been Communists, just as many Alt Right fascists had originally been libertarian because they were disillusioned with the mainstream options presented to them. Nevertheless, the violence between the former two in the Weimar Republic was not a farcical misunderstanding.
Next, I completely agree that most fascists use Fascism selectively. I simply disagree with Martinez about whether this is the correct course of action, because fascism — or life and truth — should be our guiding principles, and not Fascism as a party program.
For example, I have personally seen an anarchist punk skater become a bootlicking toady praising Ashli Babbitt’s executioner. I was initially shocked, but there is really no contradiction or hypocrisy. The enemy is a conduit of chaos, with dissolution as his ultimate goal. When they are out of power, they will be punk skaters; when in power, they will indulge in unmitigated anarcho-tyranny and statism. We should copy this winning strategy in the pursuit of fascism: While we are out of power, we should be libertarian in our methods; once in power we should, at least initially, be Fascists.
This naturally leads to the argument that in doing so, we will become what we are fighting against. But statism is not like Sauron’s ring of power, regardless of what the libertarians claim. Otherwise, all of the governments in history would have descended into evil. The anti-statist sentiment which defines America is a relatively recent phenomenon spawned by the Enlightenment’s hatred of monarchy, which by the 1700s had degenerated into a parody of traditional kingship. This overreaction had some merit in its day, but is now an anachronism.
You can buy Tito Perdue’s novel Vade Mecum here
Furthermore, nature abhors a vacuum, especially in regard to power. The odd allergy to state power is only found on the Right. The Left has no qualms about it, and thus has had great success. The attitude that power corrupts only serves to ensure that those who are inherently corrupt wield power unimpeded while those who are virtuous render themselves unable to exercise their virtue in the political realm.
The third point I wish to address is the idea that corporations cannot perform traditional state functions, such as the use of force and the enforcement of taxes. At first glance this appears to be a strong argument. But who ultimately wields more power, the President and Congress or the various private interests they must court to get elected and remain in office? Why run for Congress when you can make a Congressman your pet poodle? George Soros has worked to ensure that state power is used almost exclusively against his enemies, and rarely against his friends and pawns. And the fact that mega-corps design tax loopholes has become common knowledge even among the most apolitical.
There is also the matter of a potential power vacuum between the state and business. A perfect balance between state and corporate power would be ideal, but such a thing would be too delicate to last, anyway. One must eventually predominate over the other, like one side in a game of tug-of-war. It is simply the nature of the dynamic.
The question is thus whether the state will rule business or vice versa, and to what extent. The threat of business conquering government is the Achilles’ heel of any liberal democracy. As Oswald Spengler explained in The Decline of the West, “It is symptomatic that no constitution knows of money as a political force, it is pure theory that they contain, one and all.” The state must rule business, or business will rule the state. It is a zero-sum game.
It is therefore better to embrace a political order in which the state openly and honestly rules over business, but in which there are limits as to how it does so. Attempting to achieve a balance will invariably slide into the nearly absolute rule of the state by private business. The state being predominant is not a perfect option, but it is preferable, since government is nominally public and business is private. One could counter that the current governments throughout much of the West are objectively evil, but this came about precisely because private interests of a Jewish nature were able to hijack the American government due to its weakness.
A state should be an extension of the people. Our current government is indeed an extension of a people — the Jewish people, rather than its white founding stock. The US constitutional order abhors national government, and thus deracinated white business interests such as banks, railroads, and the industrial robber barons were able to corrupt it soon after its inception. The Founders’ naïve hope that ambition and private enterprise would check each other backfired and ultimately aggrandized those interests. As a result, these same greedy industrial interests hijacked the federal government in order to launch their war against the South, which permanently injured the states’ rights that the Constitution was ironically designed to protect. It was then quite easy for the Jews to insert themselves into this corrupt state of affairs a few decades later.
Furthermore, one of the best American presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, aptly wielded state power in domestic affairs in order to bust trusts, found the national park system, and pass the Meat Inspection and Pure Food and Drug acts while increasing US naval power abroad. It would be accurate to describe President Roosevelt as a proto-ecofascist. That Teddy is remembered as a beloved leader and not as a dark lord should thoroughly rebuke the claim that the use of state power inherently corrupts.
One could point to numerous examples of businesses having to kowtow to woke ideas such as diversity and equity, which had already been around in less virulent forms for decades in the form of human resources commissars. Isn’t this an example of government bullying business? Actually, no — it is woke businesses bullying other businesses that are not in lockstep with their agenda. Such enterprises simply fall outside the current Fascist synthesis of state and corporate power.
A point which Martinez did not bring up but which I wish to address is the claim that “the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” There is actually some truth to this when Fascism abandons the Aristotelian golden mean and goes awry. All things else being equal, it is more efficient for issues to be handled at the lowest level possible — i.e., by the citizenry or local government. But civil society in America has all but withered today. Government overreach is one reason for this, but not the sole reason. One need only live for a brief time in a European country to observe the marked contrast.
The inverse of this dictum is also true. The lack of civil society requires a strong government to kick-start it, and then gradually back off. For example, the Third Reich enriched its people through sporting and cultural events following the social devastation of the Weimar era. A responsible nationalist government would do the same in the US today, and encourage people to be free and happy to the extent that state encouragement is needed.
I do not claim that Fascism is an ideal form of government. However, no ideal government can exist in the Kali Yuga — or in the post-modern/post-industrial world, if one prefers to discard Traditionalist metaphysics. But Fascism is at least functional, which is the best we can currently hope for. And while Fascism comes with the danger of falling into excess, the excesses of liberal democracy and unfettered capitalism have proven to be far worse, both in probability and magnitude. It is they who have become indistinguishable from Communism.
I am writing this partly out of respect for Martinez Perspective, and so would like to humbly and cautiously offer an explanation for his strong criticisms of Fascism. Recently, a number of individuals of the “zigger” community have become obnoxiously loud in praising Russia’s vanilla statism and casting Putin as a savior. This is particularly annoying given that Russia Today constantly runs anti-white propaganda, such as by attacking Daniel Penny for exercising his right to defend himself. The only justification offered is dismissive handwringing over geopolitics.
A blanket dismissal of “statism” might trigger ziggers on Telegram, but it is not a serious position for a race-conscious white to take. There is no non-statist solution to the problems whites face today. If Martinez wishes to criticize Fascism, he is entitled to do so. Quite frankly, those who advocate Fascism and National Socialism today often tend to rest on other people’s laurels. But this will not be a serious debate until Martinez offers a statist alternative that better serves the interests of whites. Otherwise, he risks retreating into stale libertarian and conservative talking points.
* * *
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.
24 comments
“If fascism and Communism had had the same goals, it would have been much less likely that they would have fought . . The Communists would have allied with the Falange against the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War”
Funny you should say that. In a documentary about the Spanish Civil War, a former waitress in a canteen serving the Condor Legion mentioned that the German pilots were always complaining that they shouldn’t be fighting on behalf of landowners and The Church; as Nazism was a revolutionary movement it made more sense to support the socialist Republican faction!
Their real problem was probably more that they could no longer support José Antonio Primo de Rivera, but they had to support Franco. No member of the Legion Condor wanted to support the CNT or the POUM.
Perceptive observation. Your argument does better fit what I can recall of the waitress’s comments.
a former waitress in a canteen serving the Condor Legion mentioned that the German pilots were always complaining that they shouldn’t be fighting on behalf of landowners and The Church;
Very interesting observation. Do you have any source for that?
Det ariske idol (the aryan idol) by Terje Emberland and Bernt Rougthvedt mentions this. It’s a biography about the Norwegian national socialist, neo-pagan and SS fighter Per Imerslund. Sadly the book isn’t available in english. Imerslund volunteered for the nationalists in Spain and he said the same thing, many germans felt uneasy about fighting for the nationalists, they felt like they were defending the interests of the spanish capitalists and the catholic church, not Europe. Primo de Rivera was seen as an opportunist who larped as a fascist to gain support from the workers and the peasants and this was true. Once Franco came to power the few remaining fascists in Spain were all removed from power, communists and liberals were largely left alone.
Ledesma and Primo de Rivera had both been murdered by the time the LC properly intervened in the fighting. So referring to them as living persons is rather unlikely. Franco also did nothing to save them. For him, a dead martyr Primo de Rivera was obviously better than the living politician. I do not know Per Innerslund, but we all know the problems with the representatives of the “true doctrine”, they will never be satisfied with anything and never achieve anything.
For him, a dead martyr Primo de Rivera was obviously better than the living politician.
The same can be correctly said about Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Dead Guevara was much better for Fidel than the living one.
Strong disagree on fascism as the way forward. While some fascist traits are necessary and inevitable in any government system, fascism itself is as unnatural as communism, particularly for Whites. It also tends to be accelerationist and it attracts unstable types to the movement. The Right needs to leave these failed methods behind.
Many goods points.
Despite the totalitarianism of Fascist states, there were varying degrees of decentralisation, if one keeps in mind that Fascist ‘coporatism’ did not refer to the empowerment of oligarchic corporations, but to the contrary, the empowerment of functional professional, occupational and cultural ‘corprations’ (by which is meant a corpus or ‘body’) which for the Anglophone might better be looked on as ‘guilds’ or ‘syndicates’.
The aim of Fascism was the creation of an organic state, the corporations serving as organs of the social organism, with the state acting as the co-ordinating ‘brain’. The administration of welfare and social security, employment, family benefits, and the like, devolved to the corporations down to their most localised bodies, to factory, township and village levels.
One might say that while Fascim aims to create the social organism, libertarianism and communism are social cancers – the first aiming to divide the social organism according to contending individuals; the second, according to contending classes.
Exactly. There is a woeful lack of understanding of where the Italian Fascist ideas came from. The idea of ‘corporatism’ is from Catholic social teaching as described in the Rerum Novarum encyclical of 1891.
Many call it “libertarianism,” but I think it is just the priors of classical liberalism and the antipathy towards the exercise of political power and the state within the so-called “conservative movement” that is holding us back as a civilization. The fact that the West abhors state sovereignty whereas the Chinese state embraces it, is able to subordinate China’s oligarchs to the national interests of China as a geopolitical entity, and strategize politically in the long-term is why the Chinese are on track to defeat us in the long run.
The execution of Charles I marks a cataclysmic moment in European history that I think is given insufficient attention in these circles. Prior to the English Civil War, the figure of the monarch was regarded as the representative of the people. He was the head in the sacred “body politic” which considered society as a social organism, as opposed to an atomistic collection of individuals with competing and conflicting interests. While members of parliament would try to appropriate this title of “representative” from the monarch, the idea was generally scoffed at. King James often chided parliament, reminding them that they represented only the partisan interests of various counties and localities and were not capable of acting for the people as a whole: “I account not all that to be done by the commons of the land which hath been done by you [i.e., the assembled members of parliament].” Representing the polity as a whole and pursuing the national interest was something that could only be done by the monarch himself.
Consequently, the radical transformation of political thought which transpired during the English Civil War, and particularly the king losing his title of “representative” to parliament, caused Thomas Hobbes considerable confusion: “I know not how this so manifest a truth, should be of late so little observed; that in a monarchy, he that had the sovereignty from a descent of six hundred years, was alone called sovereign, had the title of majesty from every one of his subjects… was notwithstanding never considered as their representative; the name without contradiction passing for the title of those men [i.e., the parliamentarians], which at his command were sent up by the people to carry their petitions.”
For pretty much the entirety of European civilization, from the Greeks to Heidegger, the figure of the monarch or the dictator was generally considered the sacred representative of the people as a coherent political organism. However, nowadays conservatives have some sort of inability to comprehend the state in these terms. Conservatives always assert that the Fascists and Hitler somehow “tricked” or “deceived” or “hypnotized” the masses into adoring and following them, because they cannot comprehend the concept of the monarch or the dictator – the “sovereign” – as representing and embodying the people as a coherent and organized social organism.
Ironically, the monarch was generally considered the friend of the masses against the nobility/oligarchy throughout history. The monarch would intercede on behalf of the people at large against the exploitations of petty oligarchs and landlords. The historian David Carpenter writes about how the Magna Carta was actually harmful for the peasants, because it delivered special protections to the barons from the king which allowed them to exploit their peasants more directly without royal interference. Even in Plato, the tyrant who opposes the oligarchy of rentier elites, or “drones,” is the regime that is most closely associated with democracy. It is an enormous travesty that England and America have appropriated the word “democracy” given that liberal states have always been the least populist, being more connected with rentier elites, oligarchs, and the merchant class than with the mass of people. Contemporary historians like N.A.M. Rodger emphasize that replacing absolutism with liberal parliamentary government was essential for empowering the merchant elite – what they call “the public” or “civil society” – and making Britain the first major globalist merchant empire:
“Considering the ‘military revolution’ and the ‘naval revolution’ together suggests that absolutist monarchy was essentially a system of government for mobilizing manpower rather than money. More efficient in its way than the medieval constitutions it replaced, it was poorly adapted to meet the much greater strains imposed on state and society by a modern navy. For that, it may be suggested, what was needed was a system of government which involved the maximum participation by those interest groups whose money and skills were indispensable to sea power — not just the nobility and peasantry whom absolutism set to work, but the shipowners and seafarers, the urban merchants and financiers, the industrial investors and managers, the skilled craftsmen; all the classes, in short, which absolutist governments least represented and least favoured. A military regime could sustain itself by force, but a navy had to earn public support. Autocracy was adequate for an army, but navies needed consensus. This, we may suggest, is why Spain failed the naval test in the 16th century, just as France failed it in the 18th, Germany and Russia in the 20th.”
(Reflection, by J. Guzziferno)
“China’s rapid success can be attributed to the fact that it dropped the old communist philosophy of “all ownership” which hamstrung all Eurasia in the last century. China now practices a system which follows “corporatism” in the way of certain authoritarian governments of the past [Italy 1920’s]. They have not only nationalized industries affecting national security, but now allowed increased privatization which allows private ownership and independent professional management to operate progressively while maintaining overall state control and oversight in their direction and balance. Their rapid success is also a product of baiting (low [overhead labor & controlled material] cost / greater profit) and allowing completely developed foreign industries and their technology to simply enter their fold, which they now control (possession being nine tenths of the law). Something our free enterprise principle allowed and something they would never allow. ”
“Napoleon’s system of laws was placed by empirical decree. These laws were so revolutionary and popular that they were adopted by many other nations. Equality before the law, religious toleration, and equality of inheritance, by these clear and enlightened laws Napoleon was rightly hailed as a second Justinian. These laws were to some extent overturned by the old oppressors or victors and self-proclaimed liberators consolidating their own power after his defeat (whose governments and priorities were instead driven by capitalistic and corporate powers in deciding economics and war; the greatest corporate influenced government, Britain at the time by the EIC or British East India Co. Napoleon’s greatness as a dictator were not just his feats of military ability and achievements but his multitude of reforms, administration, and personal civil and bureaucratic management to include his French “Code Civil” which he had intended for all of Europe.
“Prince Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha crowned king of Bulgaria at the age of six survived the Second World War during the Nazi occupation when he was a child. After the Russian occupation and coup de ’tat which followed, the royal family was seized and ferried to a new location. They expected that they would also be executed like his uncle and other regents, (following the historic fate of the Russian royal family by the communist). Although this did not happen they were kept under guard for 50 years. Simeon returned from exile in 1996 to a popular reception several years after the wall feel. During this following decade, most Bulgarians believed that the new democratic government had done little for them after the fall of the Berlin wall, reinstating their old king. Simeon self-demoted himself from king to prime minister in order to be more useful and break monarchal customs which prevented them from entering politics. In an interview after having worn both hats he said that “he could not see any single system as being the best, but certainly monarchy was something more flexible. Where politicians, which I have been, only works for only 4 or 5 year terms, the king works for a generation [consistency] to think and plan 25 years ahead roughly. The more people get upset with politicians the more monarchy has functioned”.
I agree, and although this group of similar thinking commentaries are very interesting, it is a mistake to over dissect Italian Fascism as it was intended by its founder and attributing it to all the actions of all the other nations who are now declared fascist, as it is a mistake to redefine the numerous acts, or anti-acts of modern special interest and singular interests as Fascism. Acts and interests which were never debated or even considered in the original doctrine.
For our survival the only option is the Third Position. For the survival of our posterity we have to put our ethnicity first, our race first. If we make our ethnicity, our race as our religion then we will have a chance to survive.
This article is right up my alley. As a Fascist at heart I agree with most of it. As a teenager I was a Socialist, of the eco-type who wanted only to provide support for the poor and stop the ravaging effects of global capitalism on the natural world. Nothing about that has ever changed. Then, as I grew up, I simply added to that list a desire to protect the native European peoples and their cultures, and voila, I was now a Fascist. The step from well-meaning Democratic Socialism to Fascism is much smaller than anyone dares admit. Looking through the early 20th century with clarity, it’s plain to see how Mosley came from Labour, Mussolini came from the Italian socialist party, the NSDAP came from the German Labor Party. Fascism is a labor movement. This is not some immense deception, as Marxists like to claim, it’s not Capitalism masquerading as Socialism like a wolf in sheep’s clothing: it is a sincere evolution of Progressive values. It’s clear to me that Fascism is Progressivism after you put it through a world war, it’s Progressivism with teeth and urgency, laser-focused on dealing with the post-WW1 political issues in Europe. One of the biggest lies peddled in history and today is that Fascism is hyper-capitalism, when in truth Liberalism is hyper-capitalism. Fascism seeks immediately to check hyper-capitalism and force it at gunpoint to work for the people, while Liberalism would be happy to let it run wild and and force the people at gunpoint to work for IT.
I’ve also pointed to TR as the greatest American president of the 20th century who most felt like a Proper Statesman who appealed to my European sensibilities, and likewise have considered his Republican Progressivism as stemming from the same vein as Fascism. It simply fits into the trend perfectly, its only difference is that it predates those horrible World Wars and was as a result much softer – or rather, it had no need for hardness yet… Fascism is simply the best system we have, to check capitalism, to protect the natural world, to protect the poor, to protect racial and cultural heritage, all of it. Which is, of course, precisely the reason why the rival ideologies of Liberalism and Communism teamed up, and continue to team up, to discredit and destroy it.
I would add another thought to this: Libertarians who are so disingenuous as to pretend not to understand the differences between Fascism and Communism are equally ridiculous as the neo-pagans who proclaim an inability to distinguish Judaism from Christianity. Both have shared a history of undeniable animosity and struggle, indeed entire eras have been defined by their opposition to one another stemming from an inherent incompatibility. Communism and Fascism are not interchangeable despite both existing within the realm of Socialism, for the same reasons Judaism and Christianity are not the same despite both being Abrahamic – for reasons that are obvious to any observer. Libertarians would watch one man walk up a hill and another walk into a lake, and proclaim walking to be the problem instead of the direction one picks to walk in – they’re the same when it comes to statism, they would rather have us all stateless and rudderless and prey to the vultures of capital. It’s clear whose interests they serve and it’s not the interests of the people at large – which also means race at large. Race = community and racial consciousness = socialism on some level.
You make good points. What you seem to be eliding is that Communism is fascism for the jews, whereas Italian and German fascism was not. The fundamental issue is not a difference is ideas, but a difference in the races that implement those ideas. Judeo-Fascism is not Germano-Fascism. Germano-Fascism is not Italo-Fascism. Judeo-Capitalism is not Germano-Capitalism. Germano-Capitalism is not Italo-Capitalism.
I blame Plato and all that followed him from the notion that ideas same meaning for different races. As long as people in the racial movement believe is ‘universal’ ideas that exist independently of the races that express them, we’ll be going around in circles trying to understand what happened in Italy and Germany in the 1920s.
It was not ‘America’ (or ‘Britain’ or ‘Europe’ or ‘Russia’) that won WWII. The winner was international jewry and one of the goals of jewry is to mentally disable their racial enemies. One of the ways they do that is insisting on the notion of disembodied and non-corporeal ‘ideas’.
Simply put, the jews do not believe in ‘ideas’ as independent from their race.
As long as White persist in this superstition, they will be unable to out-think the jews.
As for the differences between Judaism and Christianity, there isn’t one. The jews treat Judaism as an instrument for furthering the interests of the jews and the jews treat Christianity as an instrument for furthering the interests of the jews. Whatever non-jews get out of Christianity is largely irrelevant.
As a non-Christian, I don’t see the point of people in the White racial community continually asserting the relevance of a religion that has utterly failed to center the racial interest of Whites while promoting the interest of every other group.
Like a good jew would do, I ask the question: What has Christianity done for Whites lately?
The Christians I know are a lot less likely to have swallowed the last quarter century of civilization-wrecking culture distortion. I agree that it’s only partial protection but it’s something. Whatever its Jewish origin and the plotting which may have gone into its creation it is the religion of the West and has been for nearly two millennia. We may wish that it had never been, but no-one can say that the world we have now would be better or worse in that case. Would the Jews have had an even tighter grip by now? Only a hundred or so years ago there was reason for significant optimism that we might continue our mastery of the globe and shed the Jewish influence as well. Christianity, whilst on the wane, was still a crucial part of almost everyone’s lives. Some of its effects were negative but were they worse than modern anomie and degeneracy?
One problem with your argument is that ‘Christianity’ as a major religion was constructive material for the anti-White racial suicide pact with the jews that is ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘Diversity, Inclusion, Equity’. Ever aspect of the anti-White agenda devolves into the Christian concepts of ‘original sin’ and ‘expiation of sin’. Without ‘sin’, there would be nothing for the jews to work with. Thus, Christianity betrayed the White race at the onset by demanding total fealty and destroying all the indigenous White religions of Europe. Christianity created desolation in the name of the Lord. When the Christian leadership could act on the jewish contempt for White people, they did and Christians ought to be ashamed of what was done to further the ‘spiritual’ goals of their faith.
But, that’s the past and neither you or I are going to change it.
A more salient issue is that Christians are totally resistant to any appeal to racial loyalty and use their faith to justify racial betrayal. For example, there is not a single major denomination that opposes mass immigration. And those that support it do so on the basis of scripture.
As for ‘anomie and degeneracy’, those are problems of mass society. Are you proposing a dissolution of mass society? I know I am. And I know how I think it can be done.
The thing that unconsciously pro-White Christians have in common with unconsciously pro-White non-Christians is their Whiteness. And American Whites mostly want the trains to run on time and to be left alone to grill. The jews are the meddlers in our midst and they have control precisely because White Christians will not oppose the jews on any grounds that non-Christian Whites can rally around. ‘Jesus is Lord’? Please.
Which brings us full circle.
Christianity cannot provide a solution to the problem of ‘the jews’ because Christianity is a jewish project. The jews used Christianity to destroy pagan Rome and are not using Christianity to destroy every White enclave on the planet.
And no matter how much pro-White Christians might want to oppose the jews, they are everywhere met with ‘But scripture says….’. And there is no fix for that problem that isn’t a project unto itself at least as massive as the one to save Whites.
If Christians want to resist racial loyalty…if Christians want to resist bonding with White non-Christian in order to save the race, how is that paganism’s problem?
The jews manage the internal hostilities between their factions by making White men the enemy. Whenever one of the factions starts squabbling with the other, the jews steer their hostility towards White people and provide some symbolic ego-massage to the factions.
The pro-White community hasn’t yet managed to do this because the pro-White community cannot agree on what racial reasoning is or how racial logic has to operate.
But this is the foundational predicate to any pro-White thinking: Nothing is more important than the continued existence of the White race.
Not ‘the West’.
Not ‘capitalism’.
Not Christianity.
Not anything.
Highly interesting article and comments.
The NSDAP very early had a clear program – the famous 25 points, only slightly modified later.
In order not to discuss Fascism in thin air, it would be interesting how they relate to our current situation and on which point the American Right would object.
Look at this:
5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners
or that:
24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination.
and many others, found easily on
https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/25_points
The problem with NSDAP is that it was a German movement of the 1900s. Whatever relevance the ’25 points’ have for White America in the 2000s is due to the fact that Germans and White America have the exact same enemy: International jewry.
Where pro-White thinking in America has to start is with the recognition that the jews would not have the power they do if the White ruling class from the beginning of the colonies, had not treated the White working class as exploitable and disposable.
When you look at Italo-Fascism and Germano-Facism, you see the same thing: A desire to end class conflict. Italian and German nationalists were both confronted by the jews exploiting class conflict to implement Judeo-Fascism (‘Communism’). Consequently, both German and Italians leaders attempted to diffuse that conflict.
The German National Socialists and the Italian Fascists both saw that capital was only afraid of the State and that is why the State figures so boldly in their politics. The patriots who formed and led the German and Italian nationalist parties saw that the State’s unwillingness to directly confront Judeo-Fascism exacerbated their nation’s issues. For the practical men, who created and guided both Italo-Fascism and Germano-Fascism, the State was a means to an end, not an end in itself.
There is no ‘Fascism’ as an idea.
There are no non-corporeal ideas of any kind.
There are only races and racial expression of ideas.
‘[T]hey’re not real principles but tactics.’
(1) There are no ‘real principles’, just political superstitions.
(2) ‘Principles without tactics’ sounds like a strategic doctrine for losing.
(3) If you have good tactics, you’re winning every day. If you a have ‘good principles’ you get to feel good about losing.
From John Guzziferno’s recent book “Reflection”.
“It is important to note that I do not blindly support totalitarian systems of government or support the suffering that any system of government has imposed on past societies. Throughout my continuous studies on past systems of government I have come to understand that each of the many common systems repeatedly empowered have been flawed to a measurable extent. These flaws differ from system to system as the principles, priorities, methods, and concentrated efforts of each system differ. Human society has repeatedly swung from extremes of left to right for ages. In remembering a political sign carried by an independent party member once in D.C., it read;
“Under Republicans Man Exploits Man, ~ Under Democrats it’s just the opposite”.
As in various systems from monarchies to systems of “self-government”, I believe the answer is somewhere in the middle where many ideologies can be brought together, used to some extent. This policy in fact has, and is being used by existing and present financially powerful groups which also greatly influence government direction. The problem is in the objectives which drive these mixed policy uses,, and the evidence that these preferred policies of choice themselves are hand-picked for the purpose of perpetuating their own growing empowerment and enhanced self-profit potentials. The wider spectrum of unused policies and methods from all past systems of government which could enable and secure all levels of society [or the whole], and the environment, are the ones that are now being avoided and buried under the grave marker of socialism and authoritarianism.
Today governing methods are desperately requiring necessary change, but like laws these changes will require enforcement and maintenance if they are to be effective. They [the lawmakers] must also move in the same direction for any progression in prioritizing and resolving the present day problems, ones affecting everyone. Can these changes be realized in what seems to be a perpetual chaotic state of variable multi self-interests, in constant opposition among themselves? Have some authoritarian systems of the past demonstrated any value to the government of their time, and what were the circumstances of their systems prior to their arrival?
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.