Counter-Currents
1,775 words 
Mainstream people tend to overestimate the role of the state. This is especially the case in societies with centuries-long totalitarian traditions. Russia is the best example. People there perceive the state as an omnipotent all-seeing dragon that can crush anyone who stands in its way. The Russian state has acquired a kind of religious, untouchable status.
But even in seemingly free countries we can see similar tendencies. American society, too, suffers from this misperception of reality, ascribing to the state some kind of supernatural, divine qualities. Manifestations of this state-worship are less ludicrous in the West than in Russia, but the effects are no less harmful. The main pernicious effect of over-reliance on the state is the reduction of the best human qualities: independence, self-sufficiency, strength of body and mind, and a high level of personal and social responsibility.
It would not be an exaggeration to claim that all the best qualities of the white man were forged in the epoch before any state existed. States emerged much later and used those useful qualities to their advantage.
At first, when the states were ethnic, the relations between people and the state were symbiotic; meaning that both sides equally benefited from them. Both the ruling class and society played their respective roles for the common benefit.
But at some point, states started to grow into something more than they should be. From being a mere useful mechanism of social self-organization, whose sole purpose was to advance common ethnic interests, some states gradually shifted into serving the interests of a small part of society to the detriment of the vast majority. Partly because of this, the so-called labor movement emerged in the second half of the 19th century. Society was split into mutually hostile classes. This rift was exploited by the old racial enemies of Europe. This process is perfectly described in Hitler’s book.
We must understand the following axiom: The state isn’t holy. It isn’t untouchable. It must never be equated with the ethnos, let alone the race. This mistake is especially widespread in Russia, where the vast majority of people perceive their ethnic identity and their citizenship as synonymous. This mistake is akin to the false generalization of the term “religion” to mean “Christianity.” When you say “religion,” many in our cultures imagine that you must be referring to Christianity.
These misperceptions play a great role in determining collective behavior. If in the religious field our main task is to divorce the term “religion” from Christianity, the main task in the political field is to tear away this holy cover from the state, under which it conceals its rotten ugliness.
Modern states and ethnic/racial interests have nothing in common. The last true ethnic state was annihilated 80 years ago. The whole modern globalist system is built on denial of white identity. Therefore, everyone who serves the interests of the state, automatically promotes and abets this anti-white agenda. Proceeding from this understanding, our goal must be to disengage from the state as much as possible. The state isn’t something holy; it is only an instrument that is supposed to be in the hands of an ethnos. When this instrument, for some reason, ceases to be useful, or even becomes harmful, it must be replaced. The state is nothing; the race is everything. The state must serve the race’s interests, not the other way around.
The laughable tendency of many white Americans to worship the state and its symbols, like the flag, is utterly counterproductive. It allows our enemies to manipulate public opinion in any direction. It is enough to proclaim gravely on TV that “the interests of the United States” require such and such measures and a gullible crowd instantly approves anything, even openly criminal
infringement on civil freedoms (as after 2001 under the Bush administration). The main problem of modern whites is their loss of a healthy ethnic mentality, under which everything would be evaluated from a position of “what does this mean for my people?”
The crooked elite have intentionally subverted the very term “nation” in order to undermine true ethnic/racial identity. They started to call the whole multiracial crowd, including all manner of invading races, a “nation” — as long as all held newly issued US passports.
It is well known that in the original sense the terms “ethnos” and “nation” described a group of people of similar ancestry and common culture. Any deviation from this definition is a malicious subversion. White people must clearly say to themselves: “All those brown/black creatures have nothing to do with us; they are not a part of our nation; they don’t belong here; they must go, one way or another.” That is the first step of mental recovery.
The second step is to understand the secondary role of the state. The mainstream misperception is that the state is powerful because it has so many enforcement agencies and surveillance agents and technologies. That is not so.
The real power of any state is in people’s minds. The moment you cease to worship the state, it ceases to exist. Yes, only locally, only around you — but that is the first victory. If you have successfully defeated the state inside your mind, then you can spread this victory further afield. The more people realize this power, the sooner the state falls.
Yet another misperception is to ascribe too much power to the masses. Public opinion matters, but only to a limited extent. What really matters is the opinion of the few best people of the nation. The ideas and vision of the natural racial aristocracy matters most. Their opinion trumps all other factors, be it the conformist bleating of mainstream sheep or the malicious threats of law enforcement agencies. If the racial aristocracy (those with the best inborn racial qualities, not necessarily those with inherited high social status) come to a united and strong consensus on the main issues, and decide to act in the needed
direction, there is no force in this world that could stop them.
Our task is to replace the existing state with our own racial state. Not on a grand scale yet, but in small gradual steps; starting with maximum self-reliance and social disengagement from mainstream society. The only connection that should remain with the outside world is an economic one. We need money and some services from them, nothing more. We ourselves can define our values
and establish our way of life. We don’t need a rotten society to dictate to us how to live. We must function as a self-contained racial diaspora — without publicly proclaiming it or notifying authorities or gaining any permissions. We don’t need any bureaucrats to “allow” us to be white people.
Many are not ready for this. They fear losing their connection to the larger society; like a lonely lamb fears to lag behind his flock. This psychological barrier must be overcome. It isn’t easy for those who are deeply rooted in the existing society; but there are no easy shortcuts. We either go our own way, or lose our identity. This will inevitably necessitate cutting many ties with institutions, associates, and acquaintances; sometimes even with relatives and close friends. Many of them are not ready to share, or even tolerate, our vision.
In this respect the Bible’s tale about Sodom and Gomorrah is a good illustration. There are only two options: Either you go out and save yourself or remain with the crowd and die. (It should be noted that Christianity, especially its modern incarnation, is an alien anti-racial ideology. But the Bible is a compendium of all kinds of fables plagiarized by the Jewish authors from different tribes, and has no definite ideology. There are plenty of interesting observations in it, alongside the racial poison and nonsense. It is useful to read the Bible as any other ancient literature, without ascribing to it any divine status.
The modern American dilemma is similar to that of the citizens of Gomorrah. It is impossible to survive without disengaging from mainstream society — first, on an informational level; afterward, in all other aspects. The first step is to cease to be a consumer of popular culture. The whole entertainment business in the West is directed at making people dumb, morally corrupt, and weak. Their main task is to promote all kinds of vices and an immoral lifestyle, and to prevent independent thinking. It is impossible to fight the System without breaking away from the influence of pop culture.
Mental liberation is the first step in this struggle. When your mind is no longer captive to alien influence, you can start to think independently and see the situation as it really is, not as it is presented by media liars. This liberation formula is simple to formulate but more difficult to apply in real life, as is the case with many scientific concepts. But there is no other way. Either we take our own new direction or we remain passive, doomed victims of the hostile system.
What is the state, in its simplest original form? Even a small group of people needs some kind of self-organization. The basic principles of governance are
used on the family level, and in small communities and worker cooperatives. This is where the state originates. It is where we must start, too. To organize a small group of people according to our vision is tantamount to conceiving a new state. World-historical events start from small beginnings.
The main battlefield is in our minds. If we win there, then no one can stop us. In order to better understand the source of real power, look at the USSR. It was the strongest and most malevolent empire in history. At the peak of its might its influence spread throughout the whole world; its agents wrought chaos in every part of this planet, even the most remote regions.
But at some point, this monster simply collapsed — without war or any appreciable external actions. What was the cause? At some point, people simply stopped worshiping this monster; stopped believing its nonsense. And that was the end of the beast. It dropped dead without a single bullet fired. Its tens of thousands of tanks, its multi-million man army, and the world’s largest
military-industrial complex didn’t help it. Its demise is a perfect example to teach us where lies the primary source of any power: not in the dead metal chunks of missiles and aircraft carriers and surveillance satellites, but in our
minds. That is where the repository of all state power is located. We can create a state, and we can abolish it. Once we understand this power we can start to use it.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
28 comments
To wit: all officers of the U.S. government and the military, first and foremost, take an oath to defend a constitution. Nowhere are “the people” or “a people” specifically named.
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed …”
There are great truths in this article, but I see two conflicting ideas here: 1) the State can fall when enough people stop supporting it, and 2) the really important thing is what a small elite thinks. The truth is not at either extreme. Probably, there were no fewer people opposed to the communist regime during Stalin’s time than during Gorbachev’s time. The USSR fell because in Gorbachev’s era the State was ruled by a weak and aging nomenklatura.
Unfortunately, the State today has more and more means to control and impose its will on “our minds”, and repress us. We cannot ignore this. Anarchism became a tremendously broad movement in some places and times, and has never achieved anything. It is not enough to ignore the State. That only works when the State has previously weakened itself by making mistakes, which does not depend on us.
It is true that elite opinion is more important than public opinion; however, this is less true when the elite does not control the State. When the elite does not hold power, it needs to win the support of the masses to counterbalance the power of the State. In other words, we need to be populist. Anything else would mean falling into self-indulgent fatalism: the Revolution will come by itself, we only have to wait for the State to fall like the USSR. That is not going to happen this way. Gorbachev himself initiated the reform, even if he later tried to stop the inertia he had started.
On the other hand, although I agree with most of the article, I think the timing is not the best either. Right when White Nationalists are influencing more mainstream discourse, when we can go back to generalist social networks and when for the first time the Overton Window is spinning not only in public discourse but also in the actions of the rulers, is not the time to say that we should disconnect and cut ties with society, family or friends.
This article makes so many different points that it is hardly possible that we would read it and agree on everything. The main thing is to recognize that it is full of vital truths.
Asier Abadroa: February 14, 2025 There are great truths in this article, but…
[delete duplicate comment]
I don’t wish that everyone agrees with what I think but I want that as many people as possible would think about these issues.
My rejection of the state as an elevated super-ideal implies rejection of all forms of conformism and totalitarian cohesion before fake icons. I well remember my years in Soviet school. I hated it. The main purpose of the Soviet education was to annihilate any sprout of independent thinking, any ability to be mentally self-sufficient. The Soviet system tried to compel all people to become obedient cattle; unable to think and unable to act without permission from above. This social experiment was very successful; the Bolshevik rulers have brilliantly succeeded in expunging higher human qualities but they miserably failed to create anything remotely resembling their promised paradise.
The root cause of such a failure is the desire to compel all people to think alike and live alike. This desire is driven by subconscious collective suicidal wish because the only way to achieve total equality among men is to lay them all into mass graves.
For example, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is of the same nature; the desire to impose a uniform artificial vision that disregards local identity. When this drive is met with resistance, the only solution in the eyes of totalitarian-minded rulers is to annihilate all those “fascicsts” (or in American case to silence and ostracize all “deplorables”).
Although I strongly disagree with Trump administration’s foreign policy, I enjoyed Vance’s speech in Munich. His criticism was relevant and touched the nerve. It reminded me of Solzhenitsin’s critique of the West (for example, his 1978 Harvard speech).
Vance correctly pointed out on the harmful tendency of the modern West to impose a totalitarian mental straitjacket on society, to expunge any independent thinking. This speech alone has already won the place in history for Vance. No one before at the top dared to name those failings of western society.
An oasis of genuine free-thinking in the form of this site allows us to engage in truly independent discussion of really important issues. Here we are not constraint by any artificial barriers, like state ideology or religious dogmas or “hate laws” of still occupied Germany.
Your arguments are logical and make sense. But I don’t think that we must choose whether to agree with my vision or yours. We can’t have a unified opinion on such a complex issue. Our difference and respect of this difference is the greatest value that our race possesses. There is nothing of this kind in among other populations on this planet. Conformism and totalitarian mindset is a norm everywhere else. The ideas of tolerance and respect of others’ opinions are purely European ones. They exist as long and as far as exists European biological identity. This vision can’t be expanded beyond this natural barrier (however try all kinds of “democratic” or Christian missionaries).
Wolf Stoner: February 15, 2025 …Although I strongly disagree with Trump administration’s foreign policy, I enjoyed Vance’s speech in Munich. His criticism was relevant and touched the nerve. It reminded me of Solzhenitsin’s critique of the West (for example, his 1978 Harvard speech).
Vance correctly pointed out on the harmful tendency of the modern West to impose a totalitarian mental straitjacket on society, to expunge any independent thinking. This speech alone has already won the place in history for Vance. No one before at the top dared to name those failings of western society….
Excellent response, Wolf. I could use some lessons in diplomacy from you. Solzhenitsyn’s controversial 1978 Harvard speech: here: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Center — A World Split Apart
The neo-Bolshevist state of Putin and his Kremlin, and the decadent America/West, are a two-headed, anti-White beast that stands in the path of our people’s preservation. That two-headed monster will eventually fall. Actually, as you point out, it’s a three-headed Semite monster: Communism, Capitalism and Christianity (3Cs) that holds us back.
Your writings are in line with and a continuation of AS’s and with WLP’s, as he describes AS here in 1974: Solzhenitsyn and the Liberals | National Vanguard
WHEN ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN, the Russian dissident writer who was exiled by the Soviet government in February, recently shouted at a group of Western newsmen, “You are worse than the KGB (Soviet secret police, equivalent to our FBI),” they were understandably hurt. After all, had not the newsmen of the democratic West made a great folk-hero of Solzhenitsyn, praising him to the skies at every opportunity? Had they not publicized his books for years, leading to their widespread sales outside the Soviet Union — and to a Nobel Prize for Literature for him in 1970? (ILLUSTRATION: Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Henry Kissinger contemptuously described the red-headed Russian literary giant as “to the right of the czars.”)
Khrushchev Goofed Too
Alas, the neo-liberal media masters of the West were finding to their sorrow that they had misjudged their man as badly as the communist masters of the Kremlin had earlier.
Solzhenitsyn’s world renown as a writer began in 1962, when Nikita Khrushchev sponsored the Soviet publication of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, an autobiographical novel of Solzhenitsyn’s experiences as a prisoner in Stalin’s death camps. Khrushchev was promoting the de-Stalinization of the Soviet Union, and Solzhenitsyn’s criticism of Stalinism fitted the party line perfectly at that time.
Later, however, the Soviet leaders began to realize that Solzhenitsyn was opposed to a great deal more than just Stalin’s particular brand of communism. They tried to shut him up, but it was too late; they had already given him a reputation and an international audience, and Solzhenitsyn continued cranking out new books which blasted away at the very foundations of the Marxist-Leninist world view.
Not a Jew
The shallow-minded liberals of the West seized on these books as props for their libertarian-democratic philosophy, as opposed to Kremlin authoritarianism. They mistakenly assumed that any Soviet dissident is automatically a neo-liberal — as, indeed, a whole platoon of dissident Jewish-intellectual contemporaries of Solzhenitsyn’s are.
But Solzhenitsyn is a genuine Russian, not a Jew. His world view comes from deep in his Russian soul, and it is as hostile to neo-liberalism as it is to Stalinism.
That fact was made manifest last month when Solzhenitsyn released a long letter he had written to the Kremlin bosses. He urged them, for the good of Russia, to turn away from the “dark, un-Russian whirlwind of Marxism,” as well as from the decadence of Western liberalism. (Marx, as also nearly all the other founders of communism, was both un-Russian and un-Western; he was a Jew.)
A Warning to Brezhnev
He condemned the murderous regime which had sent uncounted millions of his countrymen to their deaths, and he called for rooting out and punishing Stalin’s fellow murderers who still hold positions in the Kremlin hierarchy. But more than that he warned Brezhnev & Co. not to let Russia fall victim to the democratic disease now ravaging the West.
How disillusioned Solzhenitsyn’s admirers in the media must have been to read of his disgust at the “democracy run riot” in America — and, in particular, his citing of America’s inability to cope with such termites in her timbers as Daniel Ellsberg and Ramsey Clark, both media idols! He also cited America’s political parties and labor unions, her hypocritical neo-liberal intellectuals and corrupt officials, all engaged in a squalid “conflict of interests, just interests, nothing higher.”….
Read more of this 51-year-old piece at the link.
Thank you, Chairman Williams, for expanding on Solzhenitsyn. His criticism of the West was amazingly precise and timely but very few cared back then. The mainstream crowd simply enjoyed comfortable life, thinking that this materialistic paradise would last forever.
Everyone who wants to know Russia well must read “Gulag Archipelago”. This amazing book is crucial to understanding what is going on now in Ukraine. It is the continuation of the same struggle of conflicting worldviews inside wider Russian society. It is a multifaceted conflict. Besides its obvious ethnic component, it is the conflict of Asiatic tendencies inside Russian collective mindset and the European-leaning Russians who don’t want to slide back into Soviet totalitarianism.
By the way, the war in Ukraine has deeply divided the Russian society itself. Any criticism of the state is strictly forbidden but discontent is simmering under tight lid. The anti-Putinist minority becomes ever more radical. The Russian anti-Putinist forces in some sense hold even more uncompromising position than Ukrainians or anyone in Eastern Europe. The main difference is that for us it is not enough for Putinists to be kicked out of Ukraine. We want them to be kicked out of existence lock stock and barrel. There is no middle ground. It is either us or them. I don’t want to have any compromises with this neo-Bolshevik scum.
But this whole problem is multifaceted and can’t have an easy solution. Any solution is bound to dissatisfy someone. It was always this way in history.
Being well aware about American internal affairs, I understand the causes of Trump’s position on Ukraine. The Eastern Europe was never a priority for America. Besides it, the USA is in dire straits in other respects. Heavily in debt, deindustrialized, ridden with crime, becoming progressively less efficient and productive, this country hardly can continue to dominate the world as it did back in 1950es. Trump and his people understand this and try to exit all unnecessary foreign engagements in the least painful manner. Excluding Israel affairs, the Trump administration’s actions of the last month are the most professional and sensible since Reagan’s time. I am sure there are some wise people behind Trump and Vance who steer the new administration. Their task is to prevent America from going down in a death spiral. It isn’t even a party politics but an elementary self-preservation. America can’t continue the same way. Any sensible ruler would do what Trump does now.
Therefore, all lesser players must adjust their ways accordingly. The given situation creates substantial problems for Ukraine but at the same time it opens huge opportunities for other European countries. Germany can use this moment in order to militarize its society and abandon its semi-colonial status. Germany could easily increase its military up to a million men and scale up its military production. No one could oppose this move. It is perfectly justifiable now. Poland and Japan used this opportunity adroitly.
Even for Ukraine this new situation opens some new opportunities.
If Russia is allowed to control the occupied eastern territories or even more, it creates the new reality. The main task for now is to preserve the rest of Ukraine from falling under Kremlin. Most probably, Poland and other European countries will not allow this to happen.
In some sense this situation is even more preferable for our nationalist cause than if Ukraine was restored in its 1991 borders. The truncated Ukraine, freed from its Russia-leaning territories, is bound to be more nationalistic and anti-Kremlin. It will continue to be the center of gravity of anti-Kremlin activities for years to come. The Eastern regions of Ukraine and Crimea were always the problem for the rest of the country. There were strongholds of all pro-Kremlin parties. When those lands are gone, the Kremlin loses its foothold in the rest of Ukraine. Therefore, the situation as it goes on is fairly acceptable. The only condition is that the military hardware deliveries to Ukraine must continue. The Korean-style truce is a perfect arrangement in the given circumstances.
Wolf Stoner: February 16, 2025 Thank you, Chairman Williams, for expanding on Solzhenitsyn. His criticism of the West was amazingly precise and timely but very few cared back then. The mainstream crowd simply enjoyed comfortable life, thinking that this materialistic paradise would last forever. Everyone who wants to know Russia well must read “Gulag Archipelago”…
—
It’s my pleasure, Wolf. Dr. Pierce wrote about Solzhenitsyn several times, including this, mentioning Gulag Archipeligo: Books and Freedom | National Vanguard
…It’s a curious fact that Alexander Solzhenitsyn, just like his countryman Feodor Dostoevsky a century earlier, was arrested by the secret police and sent to a prison camp on suspicion of being a dissident. While in prison Dostoevsky had observed closely the Jews around him and developed the conviction that if they ever got the upper hand over the Russians, the Russians would be devoured by them. That, of course, is exactly what happened.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn, a mathematician and an officer in the Red Army, was arrested in 1945 when a Jewish political commissar opened and read a letter written by Solzhenitsyn criticizing the communist regime. Solzhenitsyn spent the next 11 years in communist prison camps and had a good chance to observe at first hand the gulag system which already had devoured some 30 million of his countrymen. When he was released from prison in 1956 Solzhenitsyn, a man of exceptional courage and integrity, began writing books critical of the communist regime.
The Jews in his books were treated with some degree of subtlety, but not with enough subtlety to keep the Jews from whining immediately that he is an anti-Semite. I am sure that the Jews have more sensitive antennae for detecting anti-Semitism than I do, but in fact after reading two or three of Solzhenitsyn’s novels even I had a strong suspicion that he was trying to tell us something about the Jews. And after reading his Gulag Archipelago I was sure of it. Solzhenitsyn didn’t come right out and say, “The Jews are our deadliest enemies, and we ought to kill them all as soon as we can,” but for the perceptive reader the message was there. For example, in Gulag Archipelago he names some of the communist secret police commissars who set up and ran the murderous system of forced-labor camps which consumed the lives of so many Russians. There are photographs of six of these communist butchers in the book. All six of them are Jews. And this in a country where less than one per cent of the population is Jewish.
But you know, Solzhenitsyn is really the exception in the postwar period, whereas before the war he would have been the rule. So again: what has happened to our writers? Why are there almost no writers of the first rank today who will speak openly of the Jews? Actually, I might rephrase that question and ask why there are virtually no writers of the first rank today, at least in the English-speaking world? We have a huge flood of trash literature being published, but very little of lasting value….
I’ve asked a friend to transcribe a short 1978 article from The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard: “Solzhenitsyn’s Message for Our People.”
Loyalty to nation and soil.
Germany from 1933 to 1945 has the reputation of being a monolithic totalitarian state, but this is a mirage. In the book Free To Obey the author writes of the famous National Socialist “polyarchy” wherein Hitler created devolved structures of power which were free to work independently of him. And the cutting-edge intellectuals of the Reich envisioned a post war world where this paradigm would continue; so it is ironic that the ultimate vision of National Socialism is where the state does in fact wither away, as their focus was always on race, not state.
Yes, if we compare Germany of 1930es with other countries of this period, it looks much more advantageously in terms of personal freedom. In the USA, where people had more nominal political freedom the predator private businesses and violent gangs effectively negated those advantages; the non-state actors imposed their own set of totalitarian rules on street level. It is unimaginable that Germany would allow such awful thing to exist like Murder Incorporated.
Besides it, the moral decadence of American society even back then was noticeable. Therefore, all things considered, the “beacon of democracy” looked ever less attractive when compared with growing and increasingly successful Hitler’s Germany.
Britain was a descending empire. There was not much to boast about. It was broke as a result of WW1, despite of its nominal victorious status.
Any comparison with USSR is bound to be in Germany’s favor.
Therefore, all things considered, Germany was more attractive on the world stage than its main competitors.
I don’t want to idealize Germany as a political entity (in the field of culture it was an uncontested pinnacle). Even after some positive reforms, it retained many of its former weaknesses and contradictions. Yes, eventually, if decades of further transformation along the chosen line had followed, it could lead Europe toward much healthier state but it was violently prevented from happening. Instead we have what we have.
In any discussion touching on this issue we must always mention the key fact that the modern western world is the product of allied victory. Therefore, all those who celebrate this victory must accept the current state of affairs as a desirable outcome. Those who scold the present conditions but are proud of allied victory, suffer of logical incoherency.
In 1936 Charles Lindbergh had had enough of America. He was appalled by the emerging culture of celebrity, by the rising crime, by the coarsening of the tone of the country. To him the old America of morals and rectitude and small-town life was being superseded by a glitzy and meretricious and (to him) deeply un-American ethos. In order to avoid this rising tide of immorality he moved his family to the English countryside.
I am deeply convinced that the main cause of all White problems is materialism. The moment Whites start to care more about money and material possessions and less about fundamental spiritual values, they start to slide down. Any future healthy White society must put high ideals first and everything else to be subservient to them. American slide into decadence is the perfect example of what happens with White people when they have wrong priorities.
Asier Abadroa: February 14, 2025 There are great truths in this article, but…
It is true that elite opinion is more important than public opinion; however, this is less true when the elite does not control the State. When the elite does not hold power, it needs to win the support of the masses to counterbalance the power of the State. In other words, we need to be populist. Anything else would mean falling into self-indulgent fatalism: the Revolution will come by itself...
I agree with most of the article, I think the timing is not the best...
—
Timing? We don’t sit around, watching the electronic Jew and ball games, waiting for the tyrannical, anti-White state to collapse. We get to work, going about implementing our vision of our own state, the exclusive White state based on the primacy of preservation and advancement of the best of our Aryan peoples.
As I’m reminded from time to time by NA National Office staffer, Doug: “You snooze, you lose.”
Don’t be so defeatist, Asier. A great truth is a great truth. Wolf says in this essay:
Mental liberation is the first step in this struggle. When your mind is no longer captive to alien influence, you can start to think independently and see the situation as it really is, not as it is presented by media liars. This liberation formula is simple to formulate but more difficult to apply in real life, as is the case with many scientific concepts. But there is no other way. Either we take our own new direction or we remain passive, doomed victims of the hostile system.
What is the state, in its simplest original form? Even a small group of people needs some kind of self-organization. The basic principles of governance are used on the family level, and in small communities and worker cooperatives. This is where the state originates. It is where we must start, too. To organize a small group of people according to our vision is tantamount to conceiving a new state. World-historical events start from small beginnings.
The main battlefield is in our minds…
That is not a populist idea, Asier. pop.u·lism – noun [ˈpäpyəˌlizəm]: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
In these pre-revolutionary times, ordinary Whites are dead weight. They need a new elite — us — but they are afraid to see, much less embrace, the great truths that Wolf expresses here for fear of being called by our opposition “enemies of the state,” or “racists” or “domestic terrorists,” or god forbid, “Hitlerian,” or “Nazis,” etc. Enemy smears are ignored by us.
Revolution, built around a radical new consciousness, begins with a small elite of independent thinkers that will be in place, developing and carefully expanding when the existing anti-White state collapses of its own weight.
We are the new elite, Aisir — ourselves alone. A well-known great truth Wolf expresses is, “world-historical events start from small beginnings.”
The fact is, most Whites will be unable to divorce themselves from the Jewish brain bomb, Christianity, or, will find it even more difficult to cease being consumers of thoroughly Judaized popular culture. If they cannot, they will be left behind after the inevitable fall. Another great truth:
The whole entertainment business in the West is directed at making people dumb, morally corrupt, and weak. Their main task is to promote all kinds of vices and an immoral lifestyle, and to prevent independent thinking. It is impossible to fight the System without breaking away from the influence of pop culture.
The author makes many great points but I think there is much confusion with the State (using deliberate capitalization here) from mere governance.
Maybe “the government that governs least governs best.” It is a familiar truism. But a weak State is like having a weak heart. No good can come of it.
When Louis XIV said “I am the State,” he wasn’t holistically correct, but he was not wrong either. An organic State is and must be more than the sum of its parts. It is not a mystical or supernatural construct but a deliberate and necessary one.
Libertarians and Anarchists tend to think that the government is the root of all evil. If only it would just “wither away” somehow. Then we would have all the blessings of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Feminism, Football, and Fast Food.
I think the notion that limited government is necessarily “the best” is no more true than that the throttle and the rudder of a mighty vessel are the inherent tools of oppression and cosmic usurpation. Perhaps only Marx would have thought that anything creative and productive would come out of a steamer ship steered by class-warfare.
I’ve noticed that a lot of “our guys” tend to believe that Americans deify “muh Constitution.”
Even if this were true ─ and it hasn’t been for over a century ─ a better diagnosis is that this kind of consumerist superficiality is a partial cause for our learned helplessness.
Most Americans simply don’t have a clue what the Constitution says, let alone what it means, and any performative or jingoistic displays of red, white, and blue on game day are not the same thing as an actual Policy.
So I think that case is hugely overstated. The Boomer with the flag-waving is not the problem.
I can understand how some “Karens” might think so if they take seriously the bumper stickers on the cars parked at a gun show ─ or the vandalistic rhetoric of a tax-protest newsletter. We have to “starve the beast” to save it. Save what? Some think there is nothing to save. In any case, I don’t think this gives us any big insight into what constitutes our major malfunction, let alone does it address our “learned helplessness.”
We have lived under a Totalitarian-Liberal hegemony for so long that we cannot any longer imagine anything else. That is what must change.
I agree that we are not facing supernatural monoliths ─ but waiting for the withering of the State for our salvation is like waiting for the return of anarchy-Jesus. If we want to go somehwere, we will have to envision it first.
A dictatorship is by definition more “efficient” than a confluence of special-interests, results which might please everyone and satisfy no one in the Democracy-Capitalist system.
If the boat is beached on the shoals, it takes a firm hand to unstick it. So pick a direction ─ almost any direction ─ and the ship of state will go somewhere again. The key is to get everybody pulling on the same side. A plurality of pathbreaking options is great; now somebody pick one.
We are told that dictatorships are bad because “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But there are usually countervaling factors that mitigate against such chaos.
Democracy-Capitalism is remarkably good at stablizing the mean. That’s because stagnation is almost a feature and not a bug. It seeks to make a grand virtue out of everyone’s self-interest, but it falters when articulating a clear public interest ─ other than what is good for the plutocracy, and articulated by their elites through the true-believers of the corporate mass-media.
This kind of regime sets like concrete and simply does not have the tools available for correcting systemic errors before they can avalanche beyond control.
Why should parliamentary-democracy be considered any better morally than a roll of the dice? There are many ways to define corruption, and many ways to define efficiency. Good governance is not metaphysics.
We are told by our moral betters and “nattering nabobs of negativity” that the Leadership Principle of the Hitler regime was flawed, not because the Nazis were evil ─ they were ! ─ but that the Leadership Principle itself was wrong, because it made Hitler’s commands into law. Fun LINK (Star Trek warning).
However, this is a basic misundertanding of the Führerprinzip which a certain Uncle explained in his Mein Kampf.
The Leadership Principle is about developing subordinates who are themselves imbibed with clear mission-oriented tactics, and a grand strategic vision of what is meant by Progress and Modernity.
These subalterns, or “little Hitlers,” as our professors derisively called them, are then to be given maximum room and authority to operate, per expectations, and then only corrected if and when absolutely necessary.
This is exactly what is done by nearly all armies everywhere with a flexible but firm chain-of-command. Here we simply apply the prescription also to political and administrative organization. Who knew?
Since Behemoth (1944) by Franz Neumann, the Frankfurt School has tried to argue that the Nazis really were not so “efficient” after all ─ that the German regime was corrupt and as reactive and parasitic as any other, and that fixing gridlock had its price.
I find those sour grapes to be questionable.
Certainly there are different ways to define and to gauge efficiency and justice, but there is no need to make a virtue out of disorder and chaos. At least the Thrid Reich aspired to order and elegance.
What good is a system where it is considered an achievement of the most high to make sure that the trains do not run on time?
We should think of the machinery of the State as a tool, like any other, but with the appropriate synergy befitting its grand station. I don’t think this is the same as supernatural or mystical concepts at all. We should leave that to the soothsayers.
The foundation of an organic Nation-State is the family unit, the pure blood of the race, and the sacred soil of its nation.
And that has to be defined somehow in the most-basic law instead of leaving it up to town halls or provinces or boozy justices to demarcate qualifications for Citizenship ─ who should be awarded it, and who not to be.
What good is Liberty if it really means kicking systemic problems like Slavery or Immigration down the road like a tin can ─ to be dealt with (or not) by future generations until something explodes?
The Third Reich was revolutionary and yet clear about this. In fact, most Weimar laws were kept intact by the Nazi regime. I think the lesson here is that ruthlessness about essentials is crucial where it is indeed crucial, but that we gain nothing by tossing out the baby with the bathwater.
I don’t particularly like the proliferation of plastic lawn flags on Memorial Day or Independence Day. But this is hardly the source of our strife for the last century. Surely there is a big difference between people noisily celebrating sportsball events and of authentic Nationalism.
It is up to us to focus our vision of the future, and then to sell it to our people. Then we will start moving mountains.
We can leverage our efforts against a greater might ─ but even with a giant lever, we need our foundational places to stand firmly upon. Then we can normalize the laws that we want, vilify and vacate the ones that we don’t.
The U.S. Constitution had its blind spots, but it has stood for centuries, longer than most regimes that change their structures like a change of underwear. I don’t see regime collapse coming in the way that many are hoping for, so we have to be as vigilant as possible.
🙂
1,298 words
I agree with all your main points. My rejection of the modern states doesn’t mean a rejection of the very concept of state (like Anarchists do). State is a natural outgrowth of tribal system of governance; and as long as it continues to preserve its tribal nature, it is the force that serves common good. But the very moment the state loses its ethnic monolith and becomes an imperial entity, it ceases to serve its original purpose.
The Führerprinzip as it was described in Hitler’s book is the perfect arrangement. As you have pointed out, this principle is fully implemented in western militaries. Every commander on his level is fully responsible for his subordinates; he has clearly defined guidelines but otherwise is fully independent in his decision-making and bears full responsibility for consequences. It is impossible to invent anything better. It is the most logical and natural way of doing any business. Yes, I am sure that this basic principle must be introduced into civil administration as well.
There is not a pro-White state in the world. States in the hands of antiwhites have done Whites great harm and are continuing to do our race great harm. We have no reason to be sentimental about the state or to romanticize it. The state is a special class of weapon and that is all.
If religion = christianity then state = government to the masses. I thought the State had four essential components: a people, territory, government, and sovereignty. ‘We, the people’ is not a people cause there is no we. ‘We-ness’ means bonded by blood, a unique identity thread remembering its origins and moving forwards thru time by racio-ethnic-cultural transmission, never losing sight of the horizontal rope. I believe it was Jean Baudrillard in Simulacra who wrote that media images and symbols become the new ‘hyperreality’ in a thoroughly degraded society like amerika and the blurring between real and symbol becomes more pronounced one cannot distinguish. The ‘racism’ tag becomes the guiltiest of repugnant stigmatas Whites alone must carry forever and suffer thru eternally. The uniform as a symbol of unquestionable heroism for red amerika or the bloody trump “Fight!” meem = prime cut USA DNA to his fans. The Patriot We Wuz Wear rocked by wiggers, mexicans, blacks, and asiatics symbolize the ‘racizm ain’t cool bruh’ neo-amerika under maga the sequel. Same with gun enthusiasts and colin noir at the helm. The scummiest of swamp creatures thought of as ‘the state’ who are a hated enemy considered totally illegitimate by people with 90+ iq, the anti-White agents of dissolution use these cozy symbol-images to placate and give fluffjobs to half the population who accept these appealing fictions as the new desired reality. Armed Uncle Sam with his constitution, pabst, and sidekick jesus ready to kick ass like Tremors’ Burt Gummer are soothing image-instruments ‘the state’-as-hostile government uses to keep its hold on power. The blue half sees these same images as diabolic monsters beneath their beds dragging them down to fascist hell. The beguilement by visuals is so potent that what these people see is mirage. I see the State as the authority decision-making head of the body or the man of the national house, strong families as the heartbeat, philosopher-thinkers of old as the brainpower, laborers, artists, and warrior class as skeletal, digestive, and nervous systems and so on where each part compliments and is inseparable yet essential for the proper functioning of the whole. None are of exact equal importance but indispensable to safeguard against inner decay and outsider threat.
We are all agreeing on essentials. We reject the decadent ways of the modern society (be it American or Russian one) and want to restore the natural arrangement. But we can’t do it by force in the given circumstances. Therefore, we must balance and adjust our way in between the main players. We are the de-facto underground; persecuted and vilified. These conditions compel us to adopt some kind of Jewish mentality. We can’t say and do openly what we want. We must mask our intentions and lurk behind greater players. It is normal, although somewhat counterintuitive to the inborn White mentality. But there is no other way.
Greg once wrote of us being secret agents for the deep state of a stateless people-White people. I like that approach and agree it’s the hand we are dealt right now, stealthy maneuvering across pitfalls, trapped rooms in Vincenzo Natali’s Cube, and many roving laser beams to not trip the crowd alarm. Until hard power and the apparatus of the state becomes ours to wield by the best of proWhite hands absolutely, this current remains as it is. Follow Gandalf’s advice to Frodo on the ring: keep it secret, keep it safe.
I can remember that essay, with the picture of the fox running with a pack of hounds (if I remember the dog breed correctly). Here is another, by a guest writer: https://counter-currents.com/2021/03/a-strategy-for-secret-agents/
Will Williams, quoting Pierce: February 17, 2025 …Solzhenitsyn didn’t come right out and say, “The Jews are our deadliest enemies, and we ought to kill them all as soon as we can,” but for the perceptive reader the message was there. For example, in Gulag Archipelago he names some of the communist secret police commissars who set up and ran the murderous system of forced-labor camps which consumed the lives of so many Russians. There are photographs of six of these communist butchers in the book. All six of them are Jews. And this in a country where less than one per cent of the population is Jewish…
I’ve asked a friend to transcribe a short 1978 article from The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard: “Solzhenitsyn’s Message for Our People.”
I’ve yet to receive that transcription, but can put up this pertinent observation by AS from his Gulag Archipeligo: Solzhenitsyn on Infiltrators in Dissident Groups | National Vanguard
by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I HAD NOT YET even heard the word “nasedka” — “stool pigeon” — nor learned that there had to be one such “stool pigeon” in each cell. And I had not yet had time to think things over and conclude that I did not like this fellow, Georgi Kramarenko. But a spiritual relay, a sensor relay, had clicked inside me, and it had closed him off from me for good and all. I would not bother to recall this event if it had been the only one of its kind. But soon, with astonishment, and alarm, I became aware of the work of this internal sensor relay as a constant, inborn trait. The years passed and I lay on the same bunks, marched in the same formations, and worked in the same work brigades with hundreds of others. And always that secret sensor relay, for whose creation I deserved not the least bit of credit, worked even before I remembered it was there, worked at the first sight of a human face and eyes, at the first sound of a voice — so that I opened my heart to that person either fully or just the width of a crack, or else shut myself off from him completely.
This was so consistently unfailing that all the efforts of the State Security officers to employ stool pigeons began to seem to me as insignificant as being pestered by gnats: After all, a person who has undertaken to be a traitor always betrays the fact in his face and in his voice, and even though some were more skilled in pretense, there was always something fishy about them. On the other hand, the sensor relay helped me distinguish those to whom I could from the very beginning of our acquaintance completely disclose my most precious depths and secrets — secrets for which heads roll. Thus it was that I got through eight years of imprisonment, three years of exile, and another six years of underground authorship, which were in no wise less dangerous. During all those seventeen years I recklessly revealed myself to dozens of people — and didn’t make a misstep even once. I have never read about this trait anywhere, and I mention it here for those interested in psychology. It seems to me that such spiritual sensors exist in many of us, but because we live in too technological and rational an age, we neglect this miracle and don’t allow it to develop.
Source: The Gulag Archipelago (1973) via David Sims
During all those seventeen years I recklessly revealed myself to dozens of people — and didn’t make a misstep even once. I have never read about this trait anywhere, and I mention it here for those interested in psychology. It seems to me that such spiritual sensors exist in many of us, but because we live in too technological and rational an age, we neglect this miracle and don’t allow it to develop.
No truer words. But I am wondering if you can develop such a quality in this day and age. I suspect you are just born with it or at least a tendency in that direction and then take it from there. I had a book on old Japanese methods of physical and spiritual development which hints at this. Something to do with achieving unity and balance between your inner self and the outer world.
Our science- and technology-obsessed Age does have its sting in the tail, doesn’t it. As if ease in daily life is everything, and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down. Self-driving cars are coming along, if we will be allowed to even own cars in the first place.
Will Williams: February 17, 2025
Wolf Stoner: February 16, 2025 Thank you, Chairman Williams, for expanding on Solzhenitsyn. His criticism of the West was amazingly precise and timely but very few cared back then. The mainstream crowd simply enjoyed comfortable life, thinking that this materialistic paradise would last forever. Everyone who wants to know Russia well must read “Gulag Archipelago”…
—
It’s my pleasure, Wolf. Dr. Pierce wrote about Solzhenitsyn several times, including this, mentioning Gulag Archipeligo: Books and Freedom | National Vanguard…
I’ve asked a friend to transcribe a short 1978 article from The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard: “Solzhenitsyn’s Message for Our People.”…
—
So, here is that transcribed article: https://nationalvanguard.org/2025/02/solzhenitsyns-message-for-our-people/
FEW SPEECHES in recent years have generated as much critical comment as has Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s June commencement address at Harvard University.
The exiled Russian author was denounced by liberals and conservatives alike. The New York Times called him “dangerous,” because he questioned “the rationality of humankind.” A Boston Globe columnist said that “a mad Russian” had pulled “a fancy con-job” on the American people. Conservative editor William Buckley scolded the Nobel Prize winner in two consecutive issues of his National Review.
Liberal writer Arthur Schlesinger Jr. denounced Solzhenitsyn and his “irrelevance” to democratic society in a lengthy Washington Post article. And during Solzhenitsyn’s address, a Harvard protester held a sign reading “You Can’t Fight Stalinism With Fascism.”
Criticism of Solzhenitsyn was generally superficial (“undemocratic,” “a man of the past”) or self-serving (“in Russia they’d lock him up; but not here”).
Rosalynn Carter’s public reply to Solzhenitsyn showed that she didn’t even understand what the Russian author meant when he talked of “evil,” “courage,” and “freedom.” The President’s wife told the National Press Club that we live in a “good” society, because Americans are “caring people” who lead “useful lives.”
Naturally, Mrs. Carter does not sense the evil in the liberal-democratic way of life. Her stress on the importance of human happiness and her husband’s hypocritical cant about “human rights” are themselves expressions of the spiritually corrupt worldview which Solzhenitsyn damns.
The author of Gulag Archipelago means something quite different when he speaks of evil than do humanists. For example, Solzhenitsyn rejects the Soviet system, he wrote in 1973, “not because it is undemocratic, authoritarian, based on physical constraint — a man can live in such conditions without harm to his spiritual essence.” His objection is that “over and above its physical constraints, it demands of us total surrender of our souls.”
Any system based upon the idea of material comfort and human happiness as the highest good is evil, because it denies man’s place in the natural order. One consequence of living under such a system is that few Americans will actively defend or even acknowledge their own racial-cultural heritage. Most of them readily capitulate to outrageous minority blackmail with feelings of shame and guilt.
These are examples of the lack of civil courage in our people which Solzhenitsyn decries. Not many Americans even have the courage to speak openly and frankly about racial realities.
Solzhenitsyn vehemently rejects the liberal notion of freedom as an end in itself. The idea of freedom for its own sake is a sign of decadence. Historically an emphasis on “rights” above duties grows in an age of social and cultural decline.
For Solzhenitsyn, as for other great men of the West, true freedom is the freedom of self-restraint. Any fool can exercise the “freedom” to do whatever comes into his head, but the wise man shows freedom in being able to say “no.” Real freedom is the freedom to do what is right.
Solzhenitsyn’s awesome moral authority comes not only from years of suffering in communist labor camps and persecution by Soviet authorities, but far more from a sincere love of his Russian nation, a deep loyalty to the Western cultural heritage, and a passionate devotion to truth.
What a contrast between Solzhenitsyn’s quiet dignity, lofty moral bearing, and unshakeable national loyalty, and the strident demand for “rights” by Soviet “dissidents” like Scharansky, Ginzburg, Orlov, Slepak, and Begun — all Jews!
Solzhenitsyn’s ideas cannot simply be denounced as “Russian” or “old-fashioned.” His views are part of a long and rich Western spiritual heritage. He echoes Plato’s affirmation of social hierarchy and authority, Burke’s stress on tradition, and Hegel’s idea of the organic nation-state.
He strengthens the American intellectual legacy of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Adams, Theodore Roosevelt, and the other builders of our nation. Solzhenitsyn is an infinitely better guardian of our racial-cultural heritage than the fashionable writers of the American press who have been busy pointing out the “dangers” in his ideas.
His compelling call to spiritual revolution recalls the European revolt against liberal-democratic materialism before the Second World War.
For years, the National Alliance has been making many of the same points Solzhenitsyn stressed in his Harvard speech, including the fraud of American “freedom of the press” and the shortsightedness of US foreign policy.
More significantly, the National Alliance has consistently emphasized that our social, economic, and racial problems are not merely the result of bad politicians, the Blacks, or a minority conspiracy, but stem from the corrupt and alien values which have insidiously crept into the thinking of our people.
Solzhenitsyn is right when he stresses that only a revolution of fundamental values can reverse the tide of evil. That is a bitter truth, for it means that there are no quick or easy solutions to our people’s dilemma.
To have any meaning, the new spirituality and sense of duty of which Solzhenitsyn speaks must have an organizational expression. In America, that expression is given by the National Alliance.
In an interview with Encounter magazine (April 1976) Solzhenitsyn said that our greatest task now is to tell the truth:
Never has the future of this planet depended upon such a handful of men. I think the first universal rule, with you as well as us, is not to accept lies. To speak the truth is to ensure the rebirth of liberty — regardless of pressure, interests, and fashions — to say what one knows, to be truthful, to keep repeating it. And if some people shrug their shoulders, repeat it again.
* * *
Source: by M.W.; from Issue No. 62, National Vanguard tabloid, 1978; transcribed by Ray Wolbert: The Best of Attack and National Vanguard compiled by Kevin Alfred Strom – Cosmotheism
Thank you for posting this article by Dr. Pierce. His interpretation of Solzhenitsyn’s ideas is the most correct one. The liberal western society was too shallow and short-sighted to understand what Solzhenitsyn had warned about. The pernicious effects of materialism had destroyed the best mental qualities of the western societies. There is no easy way out.
The problem with almost all populist and quasi-nationalist movements is that they continue to prioritize “prosperity” and “economic interests” instead of addressing the much more important issues.
Trump and other western populists fall in the same pit of materialistic delusion. In this regard they are not much better than their “liberal” opponents. They all try to interpret life as a mere interplay of materialistic factors. The deeper factors are either brushed aside or wholly denied. The insanity of modern society has gone so far that even the racial factor (the most obvious and potent of all) was proclaimed to be irrelevant. The whole West lives in denial of reality. By the way, when I say “West”, I mean Russian society as well; because the Russian ethnic identity and culture are integral parts of the overall European civilization.
Solzhenitsyn is vilified both at home and abroad. The society in denial hates those who correctly diagnoses its illness.
There is an ongoing aggressive smearing media campaign against Solzhenitsyn in Putin’s Russia. The Kremlin’s hired writers constantly publish slandering books claiming that Solzhenitsyn was a traitor and a foreign agent. Solzhenitsyn is inconvenient both for the Kremlin and for the liberal West. In some bizarre way they are correct in castigating Solzhenitsyn as a “fascist”. He was a “fascist” in the same sense as we are: the people guided by common sense, natural laws, inborn decency and devoted to their ethnic identity.
We live in a world turned upside down. And our duty is to put it backward on its feet (the idea first expressed by Giordano Bruno).
To be burned at a stake is a usual fate of a true visionary and truth-seeker. We suffer the modern equivalent of the same persecution. The system and an insane society hate us and try to annihilate us by all available means. But we, regardless of all odds, will say truth and live honest lives.
Some youngsters at C-C who follow podcasts may be familiar with one of the best weekly ones, Weekly Roundup — with Fróði Midjord & Mark Weber | Guide to Kulchur hosted by Fróði Midjord and Mark Weber You may know that Weber is the long-time director of the revisionist organization, IHR (Institute of Historical Review}. What you may not know is this, from WikiJews, about the author of this piece 47 years ago about Solzhenitsyn and the importance of truth in our cause:
…Beginning in 1978 Weber became involved with the National Alliance, a far-right white supremacist organization. In 1979 Weber served as the editor of the group’s magazine, the National Vanguard. Throughout the 1980s Weber functioned as the treasurer of the National Alliance’s Cosmotheist Church…
Will Williams: February 21, 2025 …Solzhenitsyn said that our greatest task now is to tell the truth:
Never has the future of this planet depended upon such a handful of men. I think the first universal rule, with you as well as us, is not to accept lies. To speak the truth is to ensure the rebirth of liberty — regardless of pressure, interests, and fashions — to say what one knows, to be truthful, to keep repeating it. And if some people shrug their shoulders, repeat it again.
Source: by M.W.; from Issue No. 62, National Vanguard tabloid, 1978…
“The Russian state has acquired a kind of religious, untouchable status….Manifestations of this state-worship are less ludicrous in the West than in Russia”
Western societies rely more on community self-policing, virtue signalling, conformity, Karen. It’s always an interplay of opposing forces, often rooted in geography and biology.
The Russian population is characterized by a certain intertia (this is a major theme of Russian literature), which is offset by an iron-fisted, all-powerful state.
“..look at the USSR. It was the strongest and most malevolent empire in history… But at some point, this monster simply collapsed — without war or any appreciable external actions.”
The USSR didn’t collapse. It was dismantled by a faction of the Soviet deep state — the faction of, or at least adjacent to, the usual suspects. Mounting evidence is being published by historians in former Soviet block countries.
But if we really want to find an appreciable external action, it was the decision of the Saudis to comply with the American demand and increase oil production and drive the price into the ground. (Cf. the ostentatious reception they gave to Putin in December 2023.)
Wolf Stoner: March 3, 2025 Thank you for posting this article by Dr. Pierce. His interpretation of Solzhenitsyn’s ideas is the most correct one. The liberal western society was too shallow and short-sighted to understand what Solzhenitsyn had warned about. Solzhenitsyn… was a “fascist” in the same sense as we are: the people guided by common sense, natural laws, inborn decency and devoted to their ethnic identity.
We live in a world turned upside down. And our duty is to put it backward on its feet (the idea first expressed by Giordano Bruno).
To be burned at a stake is a usual fate of a true visionary and truth-seeker. We suffer the modern equivalent of the same persecution. The system and an insane society hate us and try to annihilate us by all available means. But we, regardless of all odds, will say truth and live honest lives…
—
For insisting the obvious truth that planets revolve around the sun, against the view of the Church that the universe was Earth-centered, courageous philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Church: Giordano Bruno: Visionary and Martyr | National Vanguard — by Ted O’Keef in 1979 when he was writing for Dr. William Pierce’s National Alliance
…On February 16, 1600, Bruno was led from his cell, chained at the neck, his tongue firmly gagged, and escorted barefoot over the sharp cobblestones of the Roman streets to the Campo de’ Fiori, the Field of Flowers, before the ruins of the Theater of Pompey. Vatican guards and ostentatiously bedecked Roman officials hemmed him in tightly; priests from the Order of St. John the Beheaded, whose office it was to attend to condemned criminals, walked behind, chanting litanies and urging a final repentance.
At the appointed spot Bruno was lashed to a stake, and the executioner’s men heaped a great pile of kindling wood all around him. As hundreds of excitement-seekers gawked, the brave philosopher from Nola was proferred a crucifix. He looked away. Then the executioner lit the pyre, and Giordano Bruno’s body was consumed by searing flames.
Bruno was not only ahead of his time, up against the powerful Church as a truth-telling astronomer, like Solzhenitsyn Bruno had some things to say about Jews and the dangers or race-mixing:
…Although Bruno more than once had sharp words for particular nations, he respected the European peoples in their diversity. With characteristic foresight, he warned against the consequences of the racial intermixing already under way in the wake of the European explorations and conquests.
There was one race for which Bruno reserved unmitigated disdain. He despised the Jews, referring to them as the “excrement of Egypt,” “a pestilent, leprous, and generally pernicious generation who deserve to be extinguished before they are born.”
Another essay, a biography of Bruno by Robert Ingersol in 1881, available here: Julian the Apostate and Giordano Bruno | National Vanguard. It concludes with:
… The murder of this man will never be completely and perfectly avenged until from Rome shall be swept every vestige of priest and pope, until over the shapeless ruin of St. Peter’s, the crumbled Vatican and the fallen cross, shall rise a monument to Bruno — the thinker, philosopher, philanthropist, atheist, martyr.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.