|May 4th, 2012||#1|
WN Strategies, Implicit or Explicit, Currently Being Pursued
Looking for analysis of the theories or strategies today's WN currently operate by, whether they say so or not, whether they even recognize what they are doing or not.
|July 9th, 2012||#2|
[The main debate among WN is whether to mix with or fight conservatives. This debate is implicit because the ones who mix with and support conservatives have never considered the other option - treating them as the enemy and attacking them, as I advocate in a couple essays stickied in our Strategy section. The following article on Hitler, with mixed in commentary from me, dramatically juxtaposes the two diametrically opposed camps and highlights the difference between true radicals and bourgeois fundraisers.]
[copied from Golden Dawn thread]
[going to go ahead and post the text of Hamilton article on Hitler linked in post above. The point here is to tie Golden Dawn and its success to proven strategies and techniques. There is a big difference between Greece and Germany, I think you'll agree. Yet you can notice with me that the same techniques and strategies work in two vastly different lands in two vastly different eras. Why is that? Because they respond to an enemy who is essentially the same people (jews and allied defectives) pursuing the same strategies by the same tactics.
Figure it out. Figure it out. Figure it out, white man.
It doesn't matter if you're a Nazi, I'm not, you probably aren't either. Some of you are. Either way, the NS political experience is the single most relevant political example for those looking to advance the white racial cause anywhere in the white world today. Get over your bigotry, men, and start using your brain.
I've added bolding and my own comments in blue.]
Hitler as Orator
“I know that men are won over less by the written than by the spoken word, that every great movement on this earth owes its growth to orators and not to great writers.” — Adolf Hitler, “Author’s Preface,” Mein Kampf (James Murphy trans., 1939)
About ninenty-five percent of the functional conservatives who think they are, and call themselves, White Nationalists, run from this point. They speak only to their own, and only behind closed doors. This makes them comfortable. They don't see why they shouldn't be able to win without ever moving out of their comfort zone. This is one reason they never do win.
Houston Peterson, compiler of A Treasury of the World’s Great Speeches (1965), believed that “eloquent speech” (oratory) originated deep in the prehistoric past among men “who cast spells over their fellows with the magic of words. At first it was not words so much as the rhythm, the sounds, the incantation that was a part of ritual. Chiefs, priests, medicine men, millenniums before the heroes of Homer, must have risen to power through skill in speech as well as skill in arms.”
Adolf Hitler believed the magic of the spoken word was the primary propaganda weapon. Historian David Irving called Hitler’s power of elemental oratory “his greatest gift.”
In the Beginning Was the Word
In 1941, Raoul de Roussy Sales, the compiler of a book of extracts of Hitler’s speeches, wrote, “He is essentially a speechmaker, and although today it is his deeds and his conquests that most impress the world, it should not be forgotten that he started as a soap-box orator and spoke his way to power.”
Hitler succeeded because he was personally brave, and because he was able to persuade his audience through his eyes and bearing that he seriously meant what he said. Once they accepted that, they were open to considering his arguments. And they found his arguments compelling. Things in Germany were seriously wrong, and only someone serious and strong could redress them, and he more than any other man appeared capable of knowing and doing what needed to be done.
Post-WWI Germany suffered from disintegrative social and political tendencies.
Jews briefly succeeded in establishing embryonic Communist dictatorships, nearly pitching the entire country into a totalitarian bloodbath of Russian-style proportions. Historian John Toland described the German capital as without electricity, its trolley cars and subways stopped, garbage rotting in the streets, and shops and offices closed.
Only Berlin’s night life went on unimpeded, in darkness or candlelight. It was corruption out of an overdone movie with heavily rouged girl prostitutes of eleven competing with whip-toting Amazons in high lacquered boots. There were cafes for every taste and perversion—homosexuals, lesbians, exhibitionists, sadists, masochists. Nudity had become boring and art itself was plumbing the nadir of obscenity, disillusionment and cynicism. (Adolf Hitler, 1976, p. 100)
Sex-dreck is one way jews destroy settled Aryan society. Nothing has changed on that front, if you've ever watched tv. Ordinary Germans hated it back then the way ordinary Americans hate it today.
If I didn’t live in the United States of America I might think he was exaggerating.
Upon joining the miniscule German Workers’ Party (DAP; Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) in 1919, Hitler quickly became its dominant figure and main speaker.
The first “large” meeting he addressed was held in the smoky basement of the Hofbräuhaus in Munich on October 16, 1919. There he spoke from behind a crude lectern atop a table for half an hour to an audience of seventy.
According to biographer John Toland, “Abandoning all restraint, he let emotion take over and by the time he sat down to loud applause sweat covered his face. He was exhausted but elated ‘and what before I had simply felt deep down in my heart, without being able to put it to the test, proved to be true; I could speak!’” (quoting Mein Kampf).
Hitler appealed to emotion? But I thought we were supposed to use reason, and speak in moderate tones. This is the difference between professionals and amateurs, and between conservatives (MacDonald and A3P and Vdare and AltRight) and nationalists. Emotion is unseemly to conservatives, and they fear it. Emotion, though, is where the power lies. Emotion is the avenue into the heart and the marrow; it is what will encourage and inspire men to fight. The intellect and reason are there, but they're just the support staff. We all know something is wrong with our nations, and it's really not too hard to discover the why. We all see the same symptoms. The controlled media and authorities can lie about their cause, but once we find the right man to tell us the why, the intellectual battle is complete. The real battle is to get people willing to fight. And that's an emotional matter, not an intellectual puzzle.
Toland characterized this event as “a turning point” in Hitler’s career and in the historical trajectory of the German Workers’ Party, soon to be renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP).
Hitler later wrote in the party newspaper the Völkischer Beobachter, “When I closed the meeting, I was not alone in thinking that now a wolf had been born, destined to burst in upon the herd of seducers of the people.”
The name Adolf, derived from Old High German, literally meant “noble wolf.” From that day forward “wolf” had a special meaning for him, as a nickname among close friends, his pseudonym, and the name for most of his military headquarters.
A month later Hitler spoke to 130 students, shopkeepers, and army officers in another Munich beer hall, the Eberlbräu.
Inasmuch as the speech was only the unknown Hitler’s second public address for the tiny party, two points are worth noting.
First, a government spy was present. Incorrectly identifying Hitler as a merchant, he reported that the orator “held forth in an outstanding manner” and was destined to become “a professional propaganda speaker.”
Second, Jews, Leftists, and Communists were well-organized in advance to use violence to suppress a speech targeting only 130 people, the content of which would not be circulated to a larger audience via newspapers or magazines (the mass media of the day). Their intention was to stop the meeting and intimidate the participants so that even a tiny audience could not hear Hitler’s message, knowing few would risk doing so ever again.
This pattern persists today.
The jews used violence against Hitler from day one, with the intention of nipping the threat they knew he presented even then in the bud.
Currently, for example, World War II historian David Irving is in the midst of a speaking tour of the US, one of the few remaining European countries where free speech has not (yet) been formally outlawed as “hate,” “terrorism,” “Holocaust denial,” or “defaming the memory of the dead.”
A few days ago he spoke to a handful of people at a hotel in Oklahoma City. Irving and his listeners are forced to meet furtively in private, indeed, under conditions of utmost secrecy, otherwise armed, Leftist “antifa” thugs who stalk the writer across the United States will criminally break up the meetings.
Even so, elsewhere in the hotel that evening “thirty men dressed in black with bandanas and masks,” wielding illegal weapons, stormed in, “found a birthday party for a Dr. Kunz’s family, and mistakenly smashed into that.” The crime, Irving says, was planned and led by the owner of a Tulsa wholesale computer firm.
But these masked stalkers and domestic terrorists will receive little more than a slap on the wrist from the System, if that. In essence, police, prosecutors, and courts smirk about it, as they have done for more than half a century now.
There is no great mystery about why our race is in the peril it’s in. It is not a mysterious puzzle. It is a lie to say that “we did it to ourselves.” The real reason is plain: violence, hatred, force, power, and government-approved criminality designed to suppress civil liberties.
Exactly right. It is so good to hear someone other than me stating this plain truth. Every possible underhanded tactic has been used against VNN from virtually day one, to try to drive us off the internet. There have been so many foul moves against us I've forgotten half of them. People who just post and read can be tempted to believe that we have a level playing field, but it is not the case at all. And this is merely for online typing. Which is a good remove from in the field political activity. Those who think that our politics is some kind of refereed debate, where fairness and propriety have real meaning, are very far removed from the reality of the situation. The reality is that jews took over our country by foul means, and they hold their position by all manner of criminal activity, from murder to economic reprisals -- getting men fired for political reasons -- to DDOSing and hacking. The jew will never be defeated by arguing, but only by counter-measures.
But at the Eberlbräu in 1919, Hitler had alerted his military contingent in advance, and within minutes after hecklers began interrupting, the Leftists “flew down the stairs with gashed heads.” (Mein Kampf )
Does A3P have a military contingent? Does American Renaissance? Then why should anyone take them seriously? If you don't have people willing to beat up those who attack your people, you're not serious. And everyone you're trying to sell can see this, and they won't join you. Weakness breeds contempt, not support.
After a few more meetings speaking to similar-sized crowds, Hitler insisted that the German Workers’ Party transform itself from a small ideological discussion and writing group into a true political party.
Quit masturbating, start fucking, says Hitler.
During the final days of December 1919 he and party founder Anton Drexler drafted a 25-point program that Hitler presented to the “public” for ratification.
This important meeting took place on February 24, 1920 in the Festsaal, or Festival Room, of Munich’s Hofbräuhaus, a great hall on the third floor jammed with hundreds of people.
Festival Hall, Hofbräuhaus, Munich, today
Hitler was “particularly pleased” that more than half the crowd consisted of Communists or Independent Socialist Party members. He was convinced he could win over the “true idealists” among them while making short work of the hard core disruptors.
There you go. If you actually believe you're right, why would you have any interest in speaking only to people who already agree with you? Men who do that are conservatives, and they don't deserve the name nationalist, no matter how they style themselves. Men who speak only behind closed doors don't actually believe what they're saying.
Unaccustomed to speaking to such a large audience, his voice was loud one moment and weak the next. But he spoke so simply and clearly that even those at the farthest tables could hear him.
Hitler began quietly, outlining the history of the previous ten years. But as his narrative reached the post-WWI Communist revolutions, his eyes flashed, passion crept into his voice, and he began to gesture.
Soon, angry shouts erupted from all corners of the great hall as thugs hurled heavy beer mugs at Hitler. Immediately his army supporters, forerunners of the SA, armed with whips and rubber truncheons, sprang into action, hustling the troublemakers outside.
If you're a neutral or hostile, and you see tough men spring to defend the speaker, how does this affect your perception of him and what he's saying? Are you more or less likely to take him and his cause seriously? More or less likely to join him?
Throughout 1920, at weekly or two-week intervals, Hitler continued to deliver speeches in Munich beer halls. Summaries of many of these speeches survive in lengthy secret police reports which contain accurate head counts. The audiences ranged in size from 1,200 to 3,500 people.
According to hostile German biographer Joachim Fest, by 1922 “he began holding series of eight, ten, or twelve rallies on a single evening, at each of which he would appear as the principal speaker.” (Hitler, 1973, p. 158) Though these numbers seem difficult to credit, they are what Fest reports.
Can you imagine the bodily, let alone psychological, strength it took to address twelve rallies in a single day?
On August 16, 1922 Hitler addressed his largest audience to date, a crowd of 40,000 in Munich’s great central square.
By Hitler’s own account, it took him two full years of hectic speaking to perfect his craft and become master of the art of oratory.
He could speak with spellbinding force both extemporaneously and from personally drafted scripts that he revised two, three, four, or even five times late into the night, occupying three secretaries taking dictation directly onto typewriters.
Like many expert public speakers, Hitler practiced tirelessly. He carefully rehearsed gestures, often in front of a mirror, designed to generate particular responses from his audiences.
He also experimented with his own image, asking his personal photographer Heinrich Hoffmann to take photographs for him to review. Then he’d examine them, deciding, “No, that looks silly” or “I’m never going to do that again.”
A handful of these photos exist showing Hitler practicing gestures to one of his speeches. He never intended for them to be published.
A psychic and emotional synthesis occurs between orators and their listeners. The orator’s stream of speech fuses individual members of the audience into Gustave Le Bon’s crowd. It is this crowd that the orator actually interacts with.
“Hitler was an actor of prodigious talents who could raise the temperature of the audience to flash-point, and at this point they were no longer separate individuals; they were all fused into the mass.” (Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, 1973, p. 156) The bigger the audience, the easier it was to manipulate it in such a manner.
People enjoy being part of a throng. For all their egotic belief in their own individualism, they are in fact very much the same.
Hitler paid close attention to his audiences.
At the time, Communism, socialism, and the class struggle were fundamental to political discourse everywhere.
So, in his early days, Hitler’s primary appeal was to the working and lower middle classes. He actively discouraged attendance or participation by the middle class (the bourgeoisie).
“The political attitude of that class is marked by the sign of cowardice. It exclusively concerns itself with order and tranquility. [He might better have said "conformity" and "blind obedience to authority."] I aimed, instead, to awaken the enthusiasm of the working-class world to my ideas.” (Table Talk, April 8, 1942.)
How would Hitler look at A3P and American Renaissance, and the attitudes inculcated at Vdare and TOO and other conservative sites? The answer is obvious. He would say they were focused on propriety, not radical change, and that this was characteristic of bourgeois fundraisers.
Contempt for the middle class was a recurring theme in Hitler’s writing, thinking, and private remarks.
Yet every WN group out there is 'obsessed,' and I think I use the word fairly, where it is usually used epithetically, with appealing to Jim Khaki and Sally Soccerpractice.
The trappings of his meetings were carefully calculated to exert certain effects upon the audience.
Hitler personally tested the acoustics of the important Munich meeting halls, determining the best places to stand, how loudly or softly he could speak and still be heard, the atmosphere, ventilation, and tactical layout of the rooms.
Detailed party guidelines were drawn up pertaining to such matters, specifying among other things that a hall should always be too small, and that a third of the audience should consist of party followers.
The atmosphere in the halls—impressively adorned with dramatic red, white and black swastika banners—was made genial with free beer, sausages, pretzels, folk singing, and music.
Such measures created receptive listeners.
At the appropriate psychological moment, Hitler would make a dramatic entrance—sometimes late, to intensify anticipation. He would silently survey the audience for a full minute or more before beginning to speak, further heightening tension.
After he’d carefully gauged the mood of the crowd he started talking slowly and quietly, feeling out the audience the way an actor would, adapting his manner and speech to its needs, building emotion slowly. People sat motionless, eyes riveted upon him.
He possessed an actor’s ability to suddenly throw on the extra generators and become absolutely charged with energy. Before the end of his talk he had roused the people to a pitch of almost uncontrollable excitement.
Remember too - these are Germans. Not the easiest to light of the ethnic groups. Which makes Hitler all the more remarkable.
Organized anti-white opposition, including loud heckling, hurling of heavy beer mugs stockpiled under tables as weapons, and the use of table and chair legs as clubs to beat pro-German speakers and attendees, was frequent.
Hitler handled this life-and-death problem for the movement by forming a protective service and, whenever possible, roughly chucking disruptors unceremoniously from the hall.
That's right: how we deal with violence is a vital (life and death) matter for our movement. We can solve it by not fighting, and playing make believe that we're involved in a debate, with a judge, an election, with fair vote counters and fair media. Or we can be realistic, and realize that humans are animals driven by fear, and must be able to beat or bluff down the opposition if they wish to mate and produce offspring. We know which position 90% of WN take - the functional conservative position, the position of cowardice. They do this because 1) they aren't serious; 2) it is safer; 3) it facilitates fundraising.
At a November 4, 1921 speech at the Hofbräuhaus, there were about 700 Communists in a crowd of 2,200. At a prearranged signal they attacked with fists, a hail of flying beer mugs, and chair legs. After a fierce hand-to-hand battle, Hitler’s 42 security men expelled all 700 of them from the hall, which looked as if it had been hit by a bomb.
The meeting organizer then leaped onto a table, shouting, “The meeting continues! The speaker has the floor!”
So 42 National Socialists beat down 700 punk commies. What effect do you thnik that has on people who hear about it? What effect did that have on neutrals in the hall? What do think they said, when they went home, to their family and friends and neighbors? How would you feel yourself? Would you be less or more likely to respect Hitler's party after hearing about this beat down? Would you be more or less likely to join the side of the 42 or the 700? You know the answer. It's the same for you and me and everybody else. We're not in a debate, we're in a fight. If we actually partake in the fight, and win, why, people will flock to us. If we merely mouth mealy maunderings, and accept getting shoved off the podium by teenage punks, as Jared Taylor does, we attract no support at all. We're seen to be weak and despicable, and no one wants any part of that.
Hermann Otto Hoyer, "In the Beginning was the Word"
The result of this process seems to have been a sort of culling or winnowing. Hitler was not simply speaking to the choir. In contrast to the tens of thousands who came to the mass meetings, at the beginning of 1922 there were still only 6,000 registered party members.
Many Communists and socialists unsympathetic to the movement remained. But the organized hardcore were physically ejected as soon as they began disrupting proceedings.
The remaining Leftists were often hostile and continued heckling. But Hitler drew energy from such public hostility—the very social rejection that causes most whites to shrink in fear. His powerful oratory ultimately won many Leftists to his side.
Hitler knew he was right. He believed his own bullshit. He did not back down. Nor did his men. This is why they dominated all other nationalist/conservative/right-wing tendencies and rose to the top to take over Germany. And they didn't even do it illegally, but only because they proved they could do it that way, if the state and left played that game, as we have seen they did.
Hitler also sent his own people to enroll in courses in public speaking at schools organized by opposition groups. “Thanks to this,” he said, “we obtained a good insight into the arguments which would be used by those sent to heckle at our meetings, and we were thus in a position to silence them the moment they opened their mouths.” (Table Talk, April 8, 1942)
He scattered party members throughout his audiences with orders to interrupt his speeches along prearranged lines to suggest spontaneous public (group) approval, “and these interruptions greatly strengthened the force of my own arguments.” (Table Talk, April 8, 1942)
By way of analogy, consider laugh tracks on TV, or the carefully-rehearsed tone of voice and facial expressions used by newscasters to elicit specific instinctive reactions of approval or disapproval from the passive viewing audience.
Hitler wasn't concerned with fairness, he was concerned with winning. The stakes were that important. Yet time after time we see WN who are conservatives without realizing it focused on fairness or some other lofty neutral idealism while their jew-mud opponents are never anything but vicious partisans. Jews are for jews. Muds are for muds. Whites are for individual rights, fairness, equality. Which side is going to win: the one that stands up for itself, or the one that stands up for supposedly universalist, neutral principles? The answer is obvious.
Early on, Hitler attended the meetings of his main rivals to study their techniques. His critical judgment was that the speakers delivered their speeches “in the style of a witty newspaper article or of a scientific treatise, avoided all strong words, and here and there threw in some feeble professional joke.” (Mein Kampf)
Hitler could be describing MacDonald, A3P, Vdare, AmRen, Jared Taylor and all those gathered around them. That is exactly how they do it - it is the conservative way. But the real power lies in emotion. The only time a conservative has even dared to come close to trying to pick up the emotional weapon was Pat Buchanan in his Culture Wars speech. If Pat were a serious man, it would have been a Racial Wars speech. And he would have spoken full truths, not halves, and he wouldn't have backed off when the pressure came. The use of reason is in compiling our 'backgrounders' - the stuff and studies people new to our side read to flesh out their intellectual understanding of their new cause. But for winning people over, emotion must be in the driver's seat. Only if we believe our own bullshit, and will back it with our bodies, will we attract people to a cause the powers that be do everything they can to make hateful and odious.
Hitler, in contrast, spoke with a primitive force and unabashed emotion that set him apart from intellectuals who appealed to reason. Underlying his rhetorical theory was the Ciceronian maxim that man is moved more by passion than by reason.
Hitler was a daring and original speaker, according to biographer Joachim Fest. “His courage in voicing ‘forbidden’ opinions was extraordinary. Precisely that gave him the aura of manliness, of fierceness, and sovereign contempt, which befitted the image of the Great Leader.” (Hitler, 1973, p. 159)
That and his Iron Crosses for bravery.
“They say we’re a bunch of anti-Semitic rowdies,” Hitler proclaimed in one speech. “So we are, we want to stir up a storm! We don’t want people to sleep, but to know a thunderstorm is brewing!”
Oratory is characterized by a gravitational force extending beyond the ideas expressed or the specific words used to articulate them.
Of Hitler it has been said, “It wasn’t as though he were using words, it was as though the emotions came direct without words. There was a rawness about it, a power.” (The Fatal Attraction of Hitler, BBC TV, 1989) Such speeches are, in a sense, a form of magical art.
Perhaps that is why one reader of translations of portions of Hitler’s speeches said that it was “like reading lyrics from songs without the music.”
Fest described religious-style “awakenings” and “conversions” experienced by his listeners.
Kurt Luedecke, a 32-year-old businessman who later became a leading member of Hitler’s entourage, described the spell cast by Hitler’s oratory: “The intense will of the man, the passion of his sincerity seemed to flow from him into me. I experienced an exaltation that could be likened only to religious conversion.” (Fest, p. 162)
On Hitler’s part, the “violent physical effort” required for speaking engendered “profuse perspiration” and even weight loss.
His half-German, half-American WASP foreign press secretary Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengl recalled his first meeting with Hitler after one such speech. Hitler’s exhaustion resembled that of “a great artist at the end of a grueling concert”; his face and hair were soaked and his starched collar wilted.
Naturally. The guy isn't simply speaking some borign shit for twenty minute behind a lectern, he's performing - often for hours. It's far more akin to a rock star than a professor. He's using his whole body, not just his brain and larynx.
Hitler himself said,
Whenever I have to make a speech of great importance I am always soaking wet at the end, and I find I have lost four or six pounds in weight. And in Bavaria [southern Germany, including Munich, his initial political base during the early years discussed here], where, in addition to my usual mineral water, local custom insists that I drink two or three bottles of beer, I lose as much as eight pounds. (Table Talk, July 8, 1942)
As Scottish philosopher David Hume noted in his essay “Of Eloquence” (1742), great oratory entails unleashing restraints and taking great risks—letting go—in front of an audience. The speaker taps into something deep and true within, and lets it explode.
It's parallel to sexual climaxing - you don't start there, you have to get there. And that come-flow can create babies. Hitler is basically having soul-sex with the audience. He's not just trying to amuse them or instruct them for a few minutes, he's working into a communion of family souls over matters of deepest importance. If you sweat when you have sex, then surely you have to sweat when you're talking about matters of vital (life and death) nation-al importance.
Hitler did this. As Egon Hanfstaengl, son of Ernst, who had known Hitler intimately when he was a little boy in Germany in the early 1920s, explained in 1989,
He had that ability which is needed to make people stop thinking critically and just emote. The ability derived from his readiness to throw himself totally open, to appear as it were bare and naked before his audience, to tear open his heart and display it. (Interview in The Fatal Attraction of Hitler)
And this must be done and will work today for any who can do it, as we are the same people we ever were, no matter which White country we're part of. The bourgeois, who are always competing with their fellows, and worried always about how they look, cannot reach the level at which serious political change is effected. The very idea of trying is so scary to them they don't even think about it. So don't worry about them, and don't listen to them, but instead keep your studying eye on the man and men who actually knew and know what they are doing. Hitler and his National Socialists yesterday, and Golden Dawn today, for two.
The Fatal Attraction of Hitler, BBC TV documentary, 1989.
Joachim C. Fest, Hitler, trans. from German by Richard and Clara Winston (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973).
Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (New York: Praeger, 1973; pbk., Popular Library, 1973). References to the paperback edition.
Table Talk. References to the paperback edition of Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941–1944 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953; pbk., New York: Signet Books, 1961).
John Toland, Adolf Hitler (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1976).
|August 26th, 2012||#3|
[Response to Greg Johnson's attempt to delineate what he calls Old Right and New Right.
His essay is available as text here.
OR/NR have in common and against "phony" right: reject equality, accept inequality
rejects "chimera" of equality. "All of life is governed by hierarchies of real fact and value."
traditional society (TS), OR, NR. TS is destroyed. OR means fascism/NS. attempts to restore TS within "modernity." (science, tech, mass society)
NR/OR want hierarchy and organic. we want a society free of exploitation and injustice (that is utopian).
how does NR differ from OR? THEY are stigmatized since WWII. NR rejects: "fascist and NS party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, terrorism, and genocide."
This is why Greg can only describe Golden Dawn as "interesting." If he starts saying successful, then he has to observe that, contrary to what he's imaginging the NR to be, GD does embrace party politics and daily operations that are very similar to what the OR carried on.
NR differs from ENR (European New Right) in three ways: race over ethnicity in North America; must take on the jew in NA, where jews dominate; much more frank and direct critical engagement with fascism and national socialism, not playing around fringes like ENR does (partly because of law).
- for universal nationalism as way to keep peace. all deserve sovereign homelands
- "we believe" this world can be achieved peacefully through partition and transfer, rather than violence. 'gradual and humane' programs.
- "We believe that these aims can come about by changing people's consciousness. That is, by persuading enough people in positions of influence that everyone has a stake in ethno-nationalism. The promotion of political change thru the transformation of consciousness and culture is what we call metapolitics."
In less grandiose terms, NR is not to provide leaders but to influence some vague elite, either the existing or one yet to arise. But not actually BE that elite itself. In other words, the NR is kibitzers - people who stand around the table and tell the men actually in the game how to play their cards. I mean, it sounds great when Johnson lays it out, but really, in more prosaic terms, he's just going to offer more free advice. The NR's not actually getting in the ring. Like, you know, Golden Dawn.
metapolitics must come before a change in the political order.
So says Johnson. Because it fits what he wants to do - multiply essays. But in fact, the change in order comes from being involved in all aspects of the process, not just writing and thinking. All these matters, as much of them as can be engaged, go on simultaneously. That is what we saw with the OR Nazis, and what we see with the Neo-Old Right Golden Dawners. Creating a new political order is not the hands-off affair Johnson imagines it to be. Does Golden Dawn need some 'metapolitical' change before it can begin working to transform Greece? Hell no! Whites in Western countries don't need their consciousness transformed, they need potatoes. Potatoes and protection. They need cooking oil and champions. People who will help them vanquish enemies and feed them potatoes and milk when they are hungry. The state's not there - but Golden Dawn is. The real-world physical help and political leadership provided by Golden Dawn will do more to transform Greek consciousness and culture than 1,000 clever essays by Brown Johnson. And at some level he knows this. He does not have the character to admit that his approach is not, in fact, a political strategy but a personal declaration about where he and his group are going to put their effort. They're going to write essays. Lengthy important reviews of important new Batman movies; crypt-keeping of the same-old goth writers and ancient German thinkers everyone's long familiar with. Rehash after furious rehash, but no engagement with actual politics. I'd rather have Golden Dawn's fetapolitics than Greg Johnson's metapolitics anyday. And so would average Greeks. And so would Whites in all nations.
metapolitics must come before a change in the political order.
Johnson asserts this without proving it. It is merely his opinion. Like there's something new in human relations waiting to be discovered and transmitted, and everybody will go, holy shit, I never thought of that before. But it's not like that at all. We just need ordinary politics, carried on by heroes, not new philosophies, new ideas, anything new. Just better champions, tighter organization, more loyalty, greater bravery. Honestly, Greg, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but 10,000 more 10,000-word exegeses of the gothic in Lovecraft aren't going to produce political change.
tailored to the full array of white interests/outlooks/constituencies.
Well, that's the theory, but in reality you have pitched and will continue to pitch to an extremely narrow, if high-level, sector. You have the words right, but you can't deliver on them. Do you imagine that because you serve up a 5,000-word exegesis on "The Dark Knight Rises" that you are reaching the masses who actually attend such a movie? You're not. All you're reaching are intellectuals of a certain bent. The original VNN actually achieved what you imagine you are trying to achieve. You can't repeat its success because it involves qualities neither you nor your writers possess (wit, humor, ability to satirize), and because, for reasons of sniffishness, you won't go low enough to fish where the whitefish are. Your offering is monolevel, precisely in the way George Lincoln Rockwell advised against, even if your words make obseiance to the full-spectrum offerings he advised.
community organizing is key part of metapolitics.
Ok. "community organizing"...but not party politics. As Golden Dawn shows, they can easily be the same thing. Hamas showed that too. As did the OR national socialists. What you appear to mean by community organizing are the private salons, like the one you're holding this weekend in California.
[from here on I'll just take it from the transcript]
Second, there is community organizing, meaning the cultivation of real-world communities that live according to our vision in the present and may serve as the seeds of a New Order to come.
except that's not possible because of the LAW. which can only be changed by the politics you specifically state you will not be involved in.
The primary metapolitical project of the North American New Right is to challenge and replace the hegemony of anti-white ideas throughout our culture and political system.
And this magician is going to do this by ESCHEWING POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT in favor of MULTIPLYING ESSAYS. The butt baby of Davids Copperfield and Blaine wouldn't even dream of trying to sell an illusion this fragrant. Get this again, to fully appreciate its absurdity: without owning any tv stations, or radio stations, or any elected officials, Greg Johnson and his crew of anonymites are going to "replace the hegemony of anti-white ideas throughout our culture and political system." And they're going to achieve this WITHOUT any political involvement, simply by INFLUENCING (his word, not mine) some vague elite. Not being the elite. They don't propose anything as icky as leading an actual struggle, but by influencing some unknown mass of people. Presumably there is a body of men out there just waiting for 5,000-word exegeses of Batman movies in order to break from their thrall and lead our race to victory. We're a long way, truly, from simple Greeks out working the fields, collecting watermelons and onions to feed their hungry neighbors. Nah, that's not the stuff that provides the cultural and political transformation that "must" precede change in the political order. Too mundane.
The entire cultural and political mainstream—including every shade of the “respectable” political spectrum—treats white racial consciousness and white self-assertion as evil.
As always, Johnson acts like other ideas have triumphed because they persuaded people, when the known truth is that the vast majority has no real beliefs other than to avoid pain, and will generally go along with whatever comes out of the loudspeaker. That's the truth. It's just too boring for the Johnsons of the world to accept. You can't win a cultural battle where you don't control the mass media AND you refrain from actual politics.
Our goal is to critique and destroy this consensus and make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic instead, so that no matter what political party wins office, white interests will be secured. And you're going to do this without being involved in politics, without controlling any mass media, purely by the brilliant persuasiveness of your ideas. D is for delusional. Our goal is a pluralistic white society in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them. Meanwhile Whites are shot on the street daily by feral niggers, to be redundant, the white presidential candidate takes it up the ass from jews while sucking off niggers, and not a single word contrary to the existing order of things can be printed in the mass media. You're going to change that by eschewing politics for essay-writing. One is reminded of those cult nuts' attempt to levitate the Pentagon by prayer.
There are systematic analogies between the Old Right and the Old Left, and between the New Right and the New Left.
The Old Right and Old Left had widely divergent aims, but shared common means: hierarchical, ideological political parties organized for both electioneering and armed struggle; one-party police states led by dictators; the elimination of opposition through censorship, imprisonment, terror, and outright murder, sometimes on a mind-boggling industrial scale.
Greggy, you don't seem to understand that you can't just pick and choose how you fight. If the other guy is willing to cheat, lie, steal and murder - and you're not - guess who's going to win? You're simply high-handedly declaring that you're too good for anything as icky as actual fighting - which is merely a sign of your personality problems, and your lack of self-awareness, but what's unforgivable is the alacrity with which you throw your betters under the bus. Does their behavior at some level shame you? The NS not only wrote better essays than you, they thought better thoughts, and they fought better fights. Golden Dawn shows the proper relation between old and new right, if you must insist on that distinction. You can verbally camouflage it all you like with pretty words, but your retreat into mere essaying is the farthest thing from an actual political strategy. It's just your way of rationalizing your own choices.
Yes, in the case of classical National Socialism, revisionists argue that many of these atrocities are exaggerated or made up out of whole cloth. But revisionism about the Second World War is really beside the point, because the terroristic, imperialistic, genocidal impulse exists in National Socialism today. For instance, latter-day National Socialist William Pierce routinely pooh-poohed the Holocaust. But he was willing to countenance real terrorism, imperialism, and genocide on a scale that would dwarf anything in the 20th century. That spirit is what we reject.
All this does is show that you are incapable of loyalty. You will throw anyone under the bus if you think it will make you look better. The Nazis deserve respect, even if you're not a Nazi. You don't give it to them. All you care about is that you think they make you look bad. Let me assure you, Gregster - you alone are fully competent to make yourself look bad. I guess you could say you have achieved a metapolitical success in how I view you.
You reject the "spirit." Pierce recognized jews were attempting to genocide us, and wanted to return the favor. Guns to a gunfight, is all that is. Your view is that fights can be conducted by whatever means the fighter finds comfortable; there are no objective criteria that need to be taken into consideration. So you don't need to worry that you control no tv or radio, you just ignore that, and big it up that your website and books are going to create a cultural revolution. This is not serious stuff - when put forward as a political strategy. The very concept of metapolitics is bogus, because it always comes down the technics of influence, and here the control of the loudspeakers (cable tv, etc., and the political system) are determinative. Sorry, Greggy. There's no escaping politics.
Yes, there were degrees of totalitarianism. The Communist abolition of private property entailed a far greater disruption of and intrusion into private life than Fascism or National Socialism, which merely sought to harmonize private property and private enterprise with the common good whenever they conflicted. Fortunately, hard totalitarianism—even the softest version of hard totalitarianism—is neither desirable nor necessary to secure the existence of our people, so we reject it. You can't know a priori what will in fact be necessary since you haven't even begun the fight and in fact expressly reject fighting.
It is instructive to look at how the New Left has handled the mind-boggling, heart-rending, stomach-churning atrocities of the Old Left. The best New Leftists do not deny them. They do not minimize them. They do not pin their hopes on “Gulag revisionism” or rehabilitating the reputation of Pol Pot. They simply disown the atrocities. They step over them and keep moving toward their goals. Which is not a decision they make, as you imply, but an opportunity that is only possible because they control the organs of public opinion. They can't be forced to defend their record when nobody else is allowed a chance at the mike. Of course they're not going to talk about their record of mass murder. But you're ignoring what lets them get away with it, in order to further the frankly ridiculous illusion that your side can make a similar evasion. First, as the revisionists you've thrown under the bus have shown, there's nothing to evade. Second, the enemy can use that same media monopoly to force your side to respond to its attacks or else simply accept the damage they do. Why do you keep acting like the playing field is level, and everything is a matter of the choices we make? You act, per the Jared Barnum Taylor who associated with this school of stupidity, like there is no enemy. And we don't need to take him into account. We just put on our best writin' suit and pen up Another Great Essay! And if we do enough...we win! You're a cheesedog, Johnson.
This is exactly what we propose to do. We are too busy resisting our own genocide to tie ourselves to defending the mistakes and excesses of the Old Right. Johnson is a natural-born conservative. Attacking is not in him. The best he can do is evade and avoid, and get back to arranging the pretty flowers.
The New Left retained the values and ultimate goals of the Old Left. They also retained elements of their philosophical framework. They then set about spreading their ideas throughout the culture by means of propaganda and institutional subversion. And they won. Aside from Cuba and North Korea, orthodox Communism is dead. Capitalism seems everywhere triumphant. And yet in the realm of culture, leftist values are completely hegemonic. The left lost the Cold War, but they won the peace. New Left and Old Left is as bogus a distinction as Old Right / New Right. What we're discussing here as though it's an ideas-battle is actually a matter of institutionalization of power. If the left owns all the satellite uplinks, and the politicians and preachers and teachers, then of course it can get away with "soft" means. The hard work of killing people has already been done. But that doesn't mean it won't have immediate recourse to this option wherever it needs to. Or that it in any way rejects the use of any means to get the job done. Old? New? Bullshit: same. It's you, the fool with no power, who is overtly, publicly rejecting the struggle for power that is in fact the only way your side could free itself or regain control of the apparatuses the control of which is what actually provides this influence you desire to effect. See, Greggy, people don't think. Very few of them. You are hugely overrating how thoughtful people are, and hugely underrating how much their meaningless views are simply authority-tropisms. Whatever the tv says to stay away from is what the mass-paramecium fears to be involved with. It's not deeper than that. People are not intellectuals. They will be influenced by brave leadership, in struggles such as we have before us, and nothing else. Certainly not by disembodied idea-ists who seek not to lead but to influence. Your aim to influence, which is wifely effeminacy, will be taken as weakness by the masses, and rightly so. The masses, as OR Hitler knew, require a strong hand. They take only a masculine impress, and reject what is soft, weak, unsure. I hate to have to explain this to you, young master Gregerson, but...when you look at Hitler, bublele? You're, yr yr...looking up. Not down. Up. Yeah. Sorry ol' Uncle Al has to break that news to you.
(Since in the West, both the Old and the New Left functioned primarily as a vehicle for Jewish ethnic interests, it would be more precise to say that Jewish values are hegemonic throughout the culture, even on the mainstream right.)
The New Left and New Right have widely divergent aims, but very similar means, namely the pursuit of political change through transforming ideas and culture, aiming at the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony.
This is just fruity beyond the point of acceptability. Premise is there's a real intellectual debate goin' on, and wez gonna win it. Yeah, except there is no debate because they own all the tv, radio and newspapers. Not only are you not giving even a passing not to their impregnable technical superiority in dissemination positioning, and legal context, you continue to pretend that the left's power is ultimately based on ideas rather than physical suppression of resistance. This is manifestly not true, and if you disagree, take your message to the street and see. But of course you don't even dare to get into that game, and you advise others against it. You're going to win it all growing flowers in your own little hothouse. It is to laugh.
The New Right rejects the totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide of the Old Right.
As well say, the New Right rejects winning. There is no winning without violence. Willing and able recourse to violence is how the jews took power. Ideas are merely an expression of jewish power, not the source. If I may use the phrase the quitter-conceder Weber used. Jews dominate this country because they are willing to use violence against competitors. And now they have the cops in their hands to do their dirty work for them. How are you going to change that? You'll say something fruity about new and different and better ideas, but this is nothing. This is just an academic pretending that politics is a battle of ideas rather than a battle.
But we do not reject their political model: the ethnically and culturally homogeneous, hierarchically organized, organic society. You just reject the only means by which it can brought about. Cuz the world has changed so much back then. Instead of fighting, today men just listen and vote. We want a world in which every distinct people has such a homeland, including the Jews. Great. Jews are for racism for them, and mongrelism for us. And you're for racialism for everybody. You bring a knife to a gunfight and expect to win.
Nor do we reject the theoretical frameworks of Fascism and National Socialism, which today are more relevant and better-grounded in science and history than ever before.
Nor do we reject such figures as Hitler and Mussolini. Objectivity requires that we recognize their virtues as well as their flaws. We have much to learn from them. We will never repudiate awakened white people just to curry favor with the Bourgeoisie.
This is particularly ludicrous. He's just gotten done rejecting basically everything the OR did, and now he's hypocritically talking about how he embraces the very people, philosophies and behaviors he just rejected. Johnson has come to make a habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth. "It is not enough that you believe, you must fight," said one famous OR guy. "I believe, but I will not fight," saith Johnson. Who then rotated yet again and expressed his support for Hitler's words. You need to decide, Greg, whether you're a Big Johnson or a Little Johnson. Well, you have decided. You just can't face the truth about your decision. I urge you to face it, and to reconsider.
I have received some gentle ribbing about including Hitler and Mussolini among the birthdays we commemorate, as it smacks of the totalitarian cult of personality. But as an editor, I find that birthdays are ideal, regularly-occurring occasions to discuss important figures. They also produce spikes in search engine traffic, which we want to capture. Besides, we commemorate many birthdays, and it would be craven to discuss people like Ezra Pound or Knut Hamsun but ignore the people they were imprisoned for following. So we will keep commemorating their birthdays until, eventually, everybody does. Ok, that makes sense. It is good to have heroes. Respected figures. Even if you disagree with them on things. But you undermined The Tradition when you draw an indelible line between your new thing and theirs. The psychology of celebrating them while simultaneously distancing yourself from them conveys a mixed message that is confusing, and unnecessarily so in light of the found facts you reject.
One of the main motives of the New Left’s move from politics to culture was disappointment with the proletariat, which was so effectively mobilized by Fascism and National Socialism, not to mention the centrist regimes of the Cold War era.
The New Left believed they represented the interests of the workers, but their approach was entirely elitist. They focused their attention on influencing the college-educated middle and professional classes, because these people have disproportionate influence on the rest of society, particularly through education, the media, and popular culture. It's a little more than influence. The left bought up the organs of opinion, took over the colleges, teachers' colleges and law schools, and bribed both political parties. This left it, over a few decades, in position to dictate ideology to the right half the bell curve, the college grads. The left doesn't influence people, it threatens them. If you don't agree, you will be weeded out of their system. If you're in the system and found out, you will be harassed and fired. To speak of persuasion and influence is far too soft. Dominate + paranoia + occupied power position + owning all the loudspeakers = suppressing all resistance. You can call that winning the debate, but that's not accurate. Preventing any debate from happening is accurate. To truly understand what the left does is to observe that it goes far, far beyond dictating political positions. It goes to the point of preventing bad thoughts from ever forming by developing techniques intended to stunt the mind: bad ways to read. And if the mind makes it over this hurdle, then all it has to read are PC-scripted textbooks. All it hears on radio/tv are jew-written news and fiction scripts. The left hasn't won the debate, it has taken over and smashed all competing views, and done what it could to destroy the very idea of idea-competition. Johnson's tone does not accurately convey the physiological-political reality of the left, which is utterly jewish, which is to say driven by hatred and paranoia. Any two white men speaking unrecorded by ZOG = conspiracy.
Likewise, the New Right represents the interests of all whites, but when it comes to social change, we need to adopt a resolutely elitist strategy. We need to recognize that, culturally and politically speaking, some whites matter more than others. History is not made by the masses. It is made out of the masses. It is made by elites molding the masses. Thus we need to direct our message to the educated, urban middle and professional classes and above.
Simple question, Greg. Given that Hitler, per the essay you published by Andrew Hamilton specifically did NOT try to attract the bourgeois at the start of his campaign to liberate Germany, and given that Golden Dawn in 2012 Greece is finding great success in going out in the streets to help the poor, why should anyone believe your way will work? Especially given that you have no way at all to influence the bourgeoisie through the colleges and grad schools? Why are cowardly, selfish, materialist upper-middle-class bourgeois with a lot to lose going to flock to your standard? As opposed to poor or lower-class people with comparatively nothing to lose?
There is no shortage of Old Right-style groups with populist messages targeting working class and rural constituencies. But we need to go beyond them if we are going to win. In America? Really? Who are these groups?
Who I am speaking for here? When I say “we,” I am speaking for more than just myself, but not for all or even most of our writers or readers. There is no presumption that every author we publish approves of our agenda, in whole or in essence. (Indeed, many of them are dead.) Nor is there any presumption that any author agrees with any other author published here. Publication here does, however, imply that I, as the Editor-in-Chief, think that a given work advances our agenda directly or indirectly: directly, by articulating a viewpoint that I would endorse as true; indirectly, by helping us build an intellectually exciting movement. That means that this so-called New Right is an artificial construct, of essays written by bourgeois individualists, not any genuine political school or tendency. It could just as well be called Greg Johnson's Fan Club. Or Greg Johnson's Racialist Reader's Digest.
And the North American New Right is an intellectual movement, not a fixed doctrine. The goals are fixed. The basic intellectual strategy is fixed. But everything else is in movement: usually toward our goals, but sometimes just whirling around the dance floor for the sheer joy of it (which, in a subtler way, also moves toward our goals). Yeah, I'm not feeling the brio in the forced tendentiousness of those 5,000-world Batman overintellectualizations.
There is a wide array of different and often incompatible intellectual traditions within the New Right. We have followers of the Traditionalism of Julius Evola and René Guénon as well as other thinkers who emphasize a metaphysics of eternal form. We have followers of non-Traditionalist, flux and history-oriented philosophers like Nietzsche, Spengler, and Heidegger. We have believers in decline and believers in Promethean progressivism. We have Darwinian biologists and scientific materialists squared off against metaphysical dualists. We have atheists, and we have representatives of all schools of religion, Christian and pagan, Eastern and Western.
We need this kind of diversity, because our goal is to foster versions of white nationalism that appeal to all existing white constituencies. Yeah, all white constituencies except the 95% who aren't intellectuals. We can speak to multitudes because we contain multitudes. Eh, not really. A variety of proud opinions, maybe, but a very thin and specific type.
How does the North American New Right relate to Old Right-style groups in North America and around the globe? Easy answer: you won't fight. You won't politic. You'll just scribble and scribble and scribble some more. And how do we relate to various democratic nationalist parties in America and Europe?
Alex Kurtagic has recently argued that democratic party politics can perform the metapolitical functions of education and community organizing, thus there is no fundamental contradiction between metapolitics and party politics. True, altho truer would be to observe that metapolitics doesn't exist. It's not like there is any politics that isn't based in some idea, some conception of things, no matter how poorly worked out. The problem Whites face is not philosophical, it's that they don't have power and their enemies do. Pretty simple thing. Of course political campaigning involves education and community organizing, but these are merely the byproducts of pursuing office. And that goal means that all educational and organizing efforts must be dominated by the election cycle and the political issues of the day. Your blatheration looks obscene next to what Golden Dawn is doing every single day in the field:
- feeding people
- protecting people
- setting up blood banks
- beating up enemies
- setting up new offices
- replacing offices destroyed by fire
- fighting fires in rural areas
- checking out animal abuse carried on by illegals
- helping the government patrol the border
- printing and passing out newspapers
- posting letters from Greeks
- posting ideological texts as lessons
- smacking commie cunts in the face
- rebutting big lies from 'human rights' hypocrites
- holding torchlight memorials
There's a lot more to it, when you have a real and functional nationalist party, than just running for elections.
That is fine, if one’s real goal is to win office. But outside of proportional representation systems, seeking office is pretty much futile. So if one’s real goal is education and organizing, then political campaigning is merely a distraction. So why not focus all one’s energy into educational and organizing efforts, and determine the agenda ourselves, rather than let electoral politics determine it for us? You're not doing that. You're writing 5,000-word Batman essays that no normal person wants to read.
Why not take all the money spent on purely political activities—voter registration drives, campaign travel, campaign literature—and channel it into education and organizing? What organizing?
David Duke, for example, has been doing enormously important work with his writings, speeches, and videos. Most of that work would come to a stop if he were to make another futile and expensive run for office. Which made a bigger impression on the public: his educational materials or his campaigns? The answer is obvious.
Intellectually, we need to draw a sharp, clear line between New Right metapolitics and all forms of nationalist party politics. We share the same broad aims, but we differ as to the best means of achieving them. We need to acknowledge these differences frankly, then divide our camp and pursue our common aims by the various paths that seem best to us.
I do not wish to spend time criticizing and attacking other sincere white advocates, competing for turf and followers or squabbling over dimes. In the end, the only valid argument for or against an approach is to look at its results. I want to win support by doing good work, not denigrating the work of others. Yet you spend all your effort denigrating both the original right, which actually dared, unlike you, get involved in politics, and damn near won the whole thing...and then you also denigrate the fact finders who preserve their legacy by protecting what they actually did from jewish big liars. You want people to credit you with real Nazi virtues while not holding you responsible for imaginary Nazi flaws. What a big stinking, steaming hypocrite you are. Who could trust you?
Even though one can draw a sharp intellectual line between New Right metapolitics and nationalist party politics, no wall separates us in the real world. The North American New Right is not a political party or a party-like intellectual sect. We are an informal network that can overlap and penetrate all social institutions, including parties. I maintain contacts with people all over the globe who are involved in various political parties. They know where I stand. Where we disagree, we agree to disagree. Are you a movement, or not? You say you are, but your words then again show you're not. Inconsistency has become a serious problem with you, Johnson. Brown Johnson's Book & Essay Club is what you are. That's fine. Or it would be fine if you admitted it. But you prefer to play games, with yourself and others.
Speaking personally, however, I wish that a wall could be erected in some cases, for if there are only six degrees of social separation between me and Barack Obama, there are far fewer degrees of separation between me and the next Anders Behring Breivik. And, for me, that is just too close for comfort. I do not want anything to do with gun-toting armies of one. The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain. Yeaaaah. You are going to take over culture. You and your ideas...and your porcelain gun. Mmhmm. We'll see that you're stuck in a lavender-scented rubber room, sir.
You see, I really believe that what I am doing is right and important. Too right and too important to expose to the risk of grown men dressing up as Knights Templar or Stormtroopers and playing with real guns. I have nothing against guns or gun-owners as such. But the Old Right model attracts unstable, violence-prone people, which just makes our job harder. Again: no one can make you look bad but you. And you're more than qualified on that front, see this essay.
But since I can’t build a movement—even a metapolitical movement—by being a hermit, the best I can do is draw clear intellectual lines of demarcation: again, the North American New Right is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide. Yeah, we get it: No fight. Just right.
(Breivik is a complex case, because he emerged from the Counter-Jihad movement, a Jewish-dominated false opposition to the Islamic colonization of Europe. But we still share his basic concerns and his goal of Europe for Europeans, even though we reject his actions and much of his analytical framework.)
Cynics have accused the New Left of being nothing but a dishonest marketing ploy. Of course, there is no point in trying to convince cynics, who know a priori that the truth is always more sordid than it seems. But the New Left actually delivered on its promises: Marxism without totalitarianism, without terror, without camps. No, that's not accurate. Accurate is that anyone who threatens the regime will be thrown in jail. What crime did Mahler and Stolz and Rudolf commit? There's nothing at all soft, different or new about leftist tactics, they just don't need to be as repressive as they once were because they've consolidated their control. It is merely your self-interested pretension that the left changed its nature rather than its tactics, and that it renounces violence in favor or persuasion. It does no such thing. It uses violence wherever it needs to. You just won't acknowledge it. Because it encourages your nostrum that real change can be accomplished by soft means alone. In your case, by writing essays.
Of course we all know that the present regime is a form of soft totalitarianism which is enacting the genocide of the white race in slow motion. But the point is that this regime was not imposed upon our people through a violent revolution. They accepted it because of the transformation of their consciousness. They can be saved the same way.
Garbage. Decades of agitprop, and our people still vote time after time to close the borders and against affirmative action. With their feet they vote to move to White areas, and toward the altar with someone of the same race. Their consciousness has hardly been transformed. They simply see no option than to go along with most things because there's no one leading the other way, and they only get one position no matter which authority they listen to. And men who might lead them are sitting on the sidelines kibitzing with essays while advising others to stay out of politics, even though they have a contemporary example right in front of their nose in Greece that getting involved is what actually works.