Hermann Anton Stilke, Joan of Arc, 1843
2,149 words
Translations: French, Russian (excerpt)
The perennial debate between White Nationalist “vanguardists” and “mainstreamers” is raging again at Alternative Right and The Daily Stormer. I think the discussion would be clarified by introducing a third category: “vantardism,” which is a combination of “vanguard” and “retard” and refers to stupid, counter-productive forms of vanguardism — a vanguardism that holds us back rather than leads us forward.
Vanguardism comes from the word “vanguard” (French avant-garde), which refers to the leading edge of a military formation. In White Nationalist terms, vanguardism is the commitment to lead our people to a White Nationalist society, to pull the political mainstream in our direction. It requires both metapolitics and straightforward politics: changing how people think and changing the political leadership of society.
But the core of vanguardism is metapolitical, meaning that vanguardists hold that certain political principles and goals are absolute and non-negotiable. And because we will not budge on these principles, we will have persuade the rest of society to think like we do. A rational minority must accept our principles as truths; a broader minority must accept them as articles of faith; the majority must accept them because we will consistently deliver prosperity, security, and peace; and a sullen minority of dissidents must accept them because they simply have no choice.
For me, there are four political absolutes:
- Europeans constitute a distinct race, the white race. Thus to be French or German or Swedish or Greek or Italian or Irish is also to be white. Therefore, no non-racial form of civic, linguistic, cultural, or religious nationalism is sufficient to defend European peoples. Because non-whites can be citizens of European lands, speak European languages, share in European culture, and profess Christianity, any form of nationalism that cannot distinguish such people from whites cannot save our race.
- The white race is threatened with simple biological extinction, compared to which all other political issues are trivial distractions. Only by recognizing the absolute and biological nature of the threat can we define a real solution and create the necessary moral seriousness and urgency to implement it.
- The only tenable solution to the threat of white extinction is White Nationalism: the creation of homogeneously white homelands for all white peoples, which will require the alteration of political borders and the mass resettlement of non-whites.
- Jews are not Europeans. Many Jews have European blood, but they have a distinctly non-European consciousness, which defines their origins, interests, and destiny in contradistinction to Europeans. This means that there is an inevitable conflict between Jewish and European interests and identity. There is, moreover, a long history of Jewish enmity and malevolence towards Europeans, which has sometimes — though not always — been recognized and reciprocated. Finally, although White Nationalists can debate endlessly on the relative responsibility of Jews for the perilous state of white humanity, there should be no debate on the fact that the organized Jewish community is the principal enemy — not the sole enemy, but the principal enemy — of every attempt to halt and reverse white extinction. One cannot defeat an enemy one will not name. Therefore, White Nationalism is inescapably anti-Semitic.
That is a rather short list of non-negotiable political absolutes. But if our race is to survive, we cannot abandon these principles, so we will just have to win our people over to them.
In terms of political platforms and propaganda, principle 1, the racial component of European identity, and principle 3, the necessity of resettling non-whites to create white homelands, are the most essential. The constant message should be: “We [English or Finns or French] are losing our homelands to non-white invaders, and we must send them back.”
Neither the threat of global white extinction nor the Jewish problem should ever be denied. They are essential principles, after all. But politically, they are somewhat recondite and esoteric. They are more touchstones than talking points. They should be trotted out when needed, in the most casual and unapologetic manner possible. They should be the ever-present busts glowering authoritatively in the background, always visible as the politicians hammer away endlessly on variations of principles 1 and 3.
Mainstreaming is not just the use of slick communications techniques. Nobody objects to that. Mainstreaming is objectionable simply because it entails the abandonment of any of these core principles. The British National Party under Nick Griffin abandoned repatriation of non-whites and the whiteness of British identity. The National Front under Marine Le Pen has abandoned repatriation and the whiteness of French identity. I am sure both Griffin and Marine would grant that globally, the white race is on the path to extinction. But locally — politically — they have given up the struggle for white preservation. And there is no point in even asking people this crooked for straight answers about the Jewish problem, since facing it requires as much courage as the other three issues combined.
What about White Nationalist politics in countries that ban parties that make explicit appeals to racial identity, or explicit calls for repatriation of non-whites, or explicit reference to the Jewish problem?
First of all, such parties may choose to remain silent on these matters for political reasons, but everyone should still know where they stand. And to assure that, they cannot just let others accuse of them of heresy. They also need to offer a steady stream of martyrs for the truth.
Second, there should be no question in anyone’s mind that such parties intend to change the system by whatever means necessary. If they are allowed to speak freely and pursue power through legal political channels, they will do so. But, lest their enemies consider jailing their leaders or outlawing them entirely, they need to present a credible threat of violence. If forced by the system, perhaps every White Nationalist political party should be ready and willing to follow the example of the Communists and immediately switch to armed struggle. A party that presents a credible threat of disciplined, sustained, and effective violence is less likely to be banned in the first place. Who wants to remove the stopper from the mouth of hell?
I have dealt in detail with the case against mainstreaming elsewhere. In a nutshell, mainstreamers are correct to emphasize that we must communicate with our people as they are now. As a vanguardist, I fully agree that we will never change our people’s thinking and pull the mainstream in our direction unless we communicate with them effectively. Thus we need to be maximally flexible and pragmatic in crafting White Nationalist messages that appeal to every white constituency. We need to colonize every shade of the political spectrum with white-friendly alternatives, so that no matter what party wins, white interests are sacrosanct. Our aim is full-spectrum intellectual and political hegemony, in order to move the mainstream toward White Nationalist policies.
But we will never pull the rest of the world in our direction if we also abandon our direction, i.e., our guiding principles. The error of mainstreaming is to abandon essential principles in the name of broader political appeal. This is self-defeating, because instead of leading the mainstream, we let the mainstream lead us. And the whole political mainstream is flowing toward white extinction. Why? Because the enemy has a vanguard too — a vanguard which has not abandoned its principles — a vanguard which is steadily pulling the mainstream in their direction.
Vantardism accepts the four essential principles outlined above, but fails to communicate them effectively because of two errors.
First, vantards insist on linking White Nationalism to unreconstructed Old Right movements, particularly German National Socialism, which are impediments to persuading our people today. Half a century ago, George Lincoln Rockwell at least had a rationale for such tactics, but with experience, even he was moving away from them at the time of his death.
Colin Liddell is quite eloquent in his dismay with such counter-productive posturing:
Imagine a scene, if you will: You live in a Northern English town in the run-up to next year’s UK general election. Recently UKIP has been making inroads, and the socialist Labour Party is worried enough to go canvassing door-to-door, so you get a knock on your door. Up pops your Labour candidate, but instead of talking about preserving the National Health Service or some other warm and fuzzy vote winner, he starts going on about what a great guy Pol Pot was and how he was right to march all those Cambodian bourgeoisie scum out into the Killing Fields. And, as for those Liberal-Democrat-supporting farmers, he suggests, the best way to deal with them would be to re-enact the Holodomor in the dales of Yorkshire, etc., etc.
He’s also got some old WWII-style cartoons, showing Nigel Farage as a diseased rat, and hands you one to post in your window. Now, assuming this is the way he canvases with everybody, how do you think he will do on election night?
If you answered “landslide victory” you are obviously a moron and should immediately put down reality as you might get seriously injured.
This is a mirror image of how nationalists who allow themselves to be associated with the Third Reich appear to members of the public, in other words as complete nutcases living in a particularly dark and sticky corner of the past. Socialists enjoy their enormous success because they skip lightly over Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Il Sung, and connect their ideas with what they redefine as the basic interests of the people, even though their vision is ultimately a poisonous and destructive one.
White nationalists of The Daily Stormer type – and my attack is not just aimed at Andrew Anglin but all those who strive to harness White Nationalism to Hitler’s corpse – effectively do the exact opposite. Even though nationalism is the essence of the basic interests of the people, many nationalists manage somehow to step over this strong point and instead connect themselves with the worst excesses of the past. It looks like a clear defeatist strategy, and defeatist strategies always look like deliberate betrayal, or at best stupidity.
Of course vantards can protest that Adolf Hitler did, in fact, agree with our principles. That is true of course, and to Hitler’s credit. It is also true of quite a lot of other intelligent whites. But the things we believe are true and good regardless of what any historical figure thought about them, one way or the other. So does harping on Hitler, no matter how factually correct one might be, make it any easier to persuade the people we are trying to save?
In the end, I am more interested in intellectual and spiritual matters than retail politics. I am on a longer journey, so to speak, so I am unwilling to travel as light as Liddell would have it. But I also understand why BUGSters, Identitarians, and others might wish to step over the Old Right altogether. In the end, is any historical fact or figure as essential as the four principles outlined above? There are many paths to the truth, and National Socialism is just one of them.
The second vantard error is to insist on what I call “premature populism,” which is presented as an appeal to working class whites but is in fact usually just an appeal to stupid, vicious, and tasteless whites of all social classes (and an implied insult to working class white people). But our movement should aim to recruit whites of all social classes who are above average in intelligence, virtue, and taste. At this stage we simply don’t need inferior whites, and no special efforts should be made to recruit them. We’ll represent their interests just like the rest of our folk, but we would be foolish to trust our racial salvation to them.
Mainstreamers tend to be sophisticated and pragmatic about communicating ideas, but they are also quick to compromise on essential principles. Vantards refuse to compromise on essential principles, but they are wedded to crude and ineffective forms of communication.
Both vantards and mainstreamers are wrong about something very important, but both groups persist in their folly through “negative legitimization,” i.e., by rejecting the vices of the other without thereby having any virtues of their own. Mainstreamers like to legitimize themselves by pointing to vantard stupidity, and vantards reject any non-stupid form of vanguardism as just more mainstreamer cowardice and drivel.
The North American New Right stands for a vanguardism that is absolutely dogmatic about core principles but also maximally flexible and pragmatic — and thus potentially effective — about ways to communicate and actualize our principles. Therefore, we combine the strengths of our opponents while rejecting their weaknesses.
For nearly 70 years, post-war White Nationalism has been dominated by conservative mainstreamers and self-marginalizing vantards. The record of failure speaks for itself. Its time we think our way outside that box. Let’s try genuine vanguardism — for a change.
80 Comments
The Hitler cult is indeed a liability, as I see it. (I largely agree with Gerard here). Frankly, Hitler’s face on the books advertised on this site put me off spending too much time here in the past. Maybe it’s a British thing- defeat of the Nazis has become a high point of the national myth, and to celebrate an historical enemy would hardly be patriotic! Those of us in our 30s also grew up hearing about Nazi bombing from our grandparents, so it’s not going to have pleasant associations. Seeing Winston Churchill unduly maligned is also irritating. I would rather advocate Churchill as a more useful figure to inspire nationalistic sentiment, along with Enoch Powell whose views were actually somewhat close to Churchill’s. Churchill was not only prescient on the Islamic threat to Europe in his youth, (See the quote from ‘The River Wars’ for instance, which a Briton can now be arrested for reading in public). Churchill also wrote of Internationalist Jewish/Marxist conspiracy in 1920, and in the 1950s he showed himself an explicit white nationalist, saying ‘Keep England white is a good slogan’. Despite all this lack of political correctness, Churchill is still a very popular figure with everyday Britons. Surely this is something for pro-whites to capitalise upon. By all means lament the internecine nature of WWII (Churchill had no part in starting the war, since he was not in office until 1940, but once in a fight it is only virtuous to see it through to victory). Of course, it was basically a white civil war, but the fact remains, and no-one stormed the beaches on D-Day for multciulturalism, political correctness or gay marriage.
To my mind, all that said, stepping over the entire matter of the war is probably most sensible, since it is not directly relevant to the present plight of the European peoples (except that it indirectly handed propaganda victories to the Left) and because it is only going to be a source of fruitless arguments among nationalists.
I know people who are implicitly pro-white, with interests in Tolkien, and Anglo Saxon history, and such things, yet who would still use ‘Nazi’ as the worst kind of insult. So I cannot help but groan when I find otherwise sensible and compelling pro-white arguments contaminated by largely irrelevant pro-Hitler rhetoric. This would cancel out all the good, and automatically alienate such people as I have just mentioned. Having read ‘Mein Kampf’ I don’t even find Hitler to be a particularly pro-white figure. Rather he was a German supremacist bent on inter-European imperialism at the expense chiefly of the Slavic peoples. The Nazis had no problem with the dispossession and enslavement of supposedly lesser whites. This is very deplorable.
On the Jewish question, I think Churchill’s more nuanced position as set out in his article ‘Zionism vs. Bolshevism’ has more to recommend it than the absolutist, Hitleresque view some seem to endorse. Jared Taylor also has it about right, pointing out that white ethnomasochism has a momentum all of its own, independent of Jewish influence and manipulation.
The Daily Stormer is pretty much on the same level as Incogman, Stormfront, etc. People can always mature, but unfortunately these types often due bring the movement down. bravado and ignorance are a bad combination. We need skins in suits as Tom Metzger once said. There are days i find myself in a vulgar mood and enjoying the content, all taken with a grain of salt, as it is written in that sarcastic, sardonic over the top style. All in all I prefer counter-currents intellectual elitism, and I feel Greg one of the best grasps of the situation at a macro level. Agree totally with the paragraph on presenting a credible threat of violence, perhaps that is a sign of radicalization in your own thought process, but definitely rings true. the key is not acting prematurely – stormtrooping without the masses being you or a general zeitgeist/metapolitical subculture to back it up just looks ridiculous. white nationalism has to move off the net into real life or there is no hope, and for that we need secret societies, meetings, covert organization, etc. there will be a day again for torch-lit marches/ceremony again, we all can feel it. i try to be supportive of anybody with a true heart -take robert randsdall running for political office. whether i see a mainsteamer or a vanguardist, in either case i know they are trying to push things in the right direction, regardless of conflicting approaches, and i can only be pleased with more and more people getting comfortable with their adaption of our ideology. we need some conferences, some goals, and strategies. Contact me, i’m all ears.
p.s. gonna try and take you up on that alan watts challenge.
This article is the exact opposite of vanguardism. A true vanguard would draw strength from the white nationalist ghetto, not look down its nose at it. The white nationalist ghetto formed things like the SA, which saved Germany communism. To lead the masses you must follow the masses, and the masses clearly like what the Daily Stormer is doing more than what CC, radix, amren, alt-right, etc. is doing.
What “masses”? The DS crowd are a tiny proportion of all whites. Surely you’re counting your chicks before they’ve hatched if you assume that they will in short order become representative of the average white on the street.
Hit it out of the park with this one, Mr. Johnson.
“Vantard” deserves its own trademark. AA is a cult of personality, like him or not, as is the object of his fanboy-dom. His response to this piece reads like a ‘tween-age slut’s tweet, #donthatemecuzImbeautiful #haterzgunnahate
BTW, what’s up with that bully boy centerfold photo of the Golden Dawn that AA is constantly stroking off to as the paragon of Aryan manly-man manliness?
Is it ‘Nordicist’ of me to notice that the ‘leader’ of the pack of leather- clad, mirrored sun glass bespectacled mustachioed men looks to be as ‘White’ as an aging Andrea Dworkin looked like a Maxim model?
It is Nordicist if you think that non-Nordic = non-white. That said, Ilias Kasidiaris is apparently of part Near Eastern ancestry. But today’s Greeks have a great deal of the Near East in their gene pool. To me, that makes Greece a European country with Near Eastern genetic incursions. You may not want your daughter to marry a Greek, but they are still whites. And despite admixtures, the Greeks still have genetic interests which Golden Dawn wishes to defend from swamping by new waves of immigration.
As much as I agree with the article, I think the main reason for the popularity of “vantardism” is not an error of intellectual or political insight. It is an emotional need that drives people towards Hitlerism. The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of (“Le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point.”).
In a way, we are the unintended victims of Germany’s propaganda. The depressing situation of today is contrasted with the glorious pictures of NS Germany. Furthermore, the ubiquous presence of Hitler as the great enemy of the present system makes him doubly attractive to enemies of that system.
You might almost think that the system uses Hitler as a kind of “honey pot” to lure and then discredit concerned white men. At the same time, many alternatives, such as nationalistic symbols, are fouled by the association with multiculturalism.
As far as I can see, white nationalists do not have any other imagery that comes anywhere close to the strength of NS imagery. Until we have developed such imagery we shall have to live with the fact that NS imagery plays an important role in our movement. For it corresponds to an emotional need that we should not ignore. We can only give the NS enthousiasts the wise council to keep their interest a private affair.
Although I would probably hate Anglin on sight if I met him in a bar, I can’t help liking his website.
It works because it is so ludicrously over the top, a caricature of itself. It’s like the Weekly World News of nationalism. He has a keen sense of the absurdity of our situation and I think his attitude puts the enemy on the defensive while disarming them by not taking itself too seriously.
OK, I read Anglin’s response. It was not so bad. It might explain the recent spike in sales of The Homo and the Negro, though I hope not.
His big error is asserting that Jewish power rests on the Holocaust, hence revisionism and going full Nazi.
I dealt with that view quite adequately in “Dealing with the Holocaust,” http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/04/dealing-with-the-holocaust/
Colin Liddell makes a very good case for thinking that any connection with the Old Right, Hitler and NS in particular, is an impediment to White Nationalism in our age. His argument is simple: nationalism is founded on reality; it represents the common good of all peoples. Why not focus on that fact alone, rather than dwell on a particular chapter in the history of one nation and one national movement?
If one is a Polish nationalist, is there anything to be gained by connecting Polish nationalism to Hitler? Particularly since there is no necessary connection between the two. (It seems almost superhumanly disinterested for some Ukrainian nationalists to be as broadminded about Hitler as they are, given that he wanted to reduce them to helots in his empire.)
My own intellectual journey went through the Old Right, and it would be dishonest and inauthentic to try to “reinvent” myself at this point. But younger people who lack paper trails should ponder Liddell’s point carefully.
I sound like an old drunk warning the young ‘uns about the evils of liquor.
As long as this doesn’t include actually denouncing Hitler, I agree. The subject needn’t be raised at all. But Hitler is the only leader to effectively fight the powers that today are destroying Europe – he is one of the heroes of our race; to be sure, one among many. And a people that throws dirt on the its own heroes doesn’t survive. It is a rather hard sell to expect heroism from people if it is to be awarded with scorn from future generations (as long as the success isn’t complete), the very generations we are fighting for and Hitler was fighting for. All the
All I am saying is that we need to respect the old fighters. If we don’t respect them, we don’t respect ourselves, and we sure as hell have no faith in our cause. We don’t ask our enemies for permission to respect our own fighters.
That’s fair enough. My initial run in with Colin was battling his “throw Hitler under the bus” message at Alt Right a couple of years ago. I think that we have to have arguments for when Hitler comes up. My preferred approach is to say that nationalism is based on reality. Our principles are natural, normal, and good. And if Hitler agrees with them, that is too his credit. One must reject, in short, the assumption that is being peddled that if Hitler agreed with something, that must be to its discredit.
A fair point, but on the other hand do you really want to insist that a Polish nationalist might have nothing whatsoever to learn from the German National Socialists? Gleaning some insights and gaining some perspective hardly requires superhuman effort. More likely, the effort would prove salutary: the danger of nationalist excesses becomes more apparent and an ability to see things through the eyes of another is developed. Consider Jews. They are the most fanatically self-interested group of all time but they do not hesitate to learn from thinkers they publicly decry as ‘anti-semites.’
Certainly a Pole can learn useful things from German National Socialism. But for obvious reasons it would be a bitter pill to swallow. My point, though, is that it would be self-defeating to package Polish ethnonationalism as “Hitler’s back, and this time, he’s on our side!”
“The perennial debate between White Nationalist “vanguardists” and “mainstreamers” is raging again at Alternative Right and The Daily Stormer. I think the discussion would be clarified by introducing a third category: “vantardism,” which is a combination of “vanguard” and “retard” and refers to stupid, counter-productive forms of vanguardism — a vanguardism that holds us back rather than leads us forward.”
——————–
Your newly minted third category, “vantardism” is just a snide way to disparage and ridicule something that you, Liddell and RamzPaul simply don’t get.
Sites like The Daily Stormer are about stating things upfront and plainly as they see it, however off base it is on some topics. A big part of that is naming the jew and talking straight about WW II and the Holohoax.
Your whole article here, in regard to criticism of The Daily Stormer, is a confused mix of contradictory qualified positions posing as sophisticated distinctions that tell us that you don’t know whether you are coming or going or are Arthur or Martha.
“The North American New Right stands for a vanguardism that is absolutely dogmatic about core principles but also maximally flexible and pragmatic — and thus potentially effective — about ways to communicate and actualize our principles. Therefore, we combine the strengths of our opponents while rejecting their weaknesses.”
——————–
“absolutely dogmatic about core principles but also maximally flexible and pragmatic”
WTF is this? We have principles, yet we don’t!
“For nearly 70 years, post-war White Nationalism has been dominated by conservative mainstreamers and self-marginalizing vantards. The record of failure speaks for itself. Its time we think our way outside that box. Let’s try genuine vanguardism — for a change.”
——————–
Past White Nationalism has failed in all those years because of the jewish stranglehold over the media. Now, because of the internet, the library of ideas about White Nationalism has become available to us masses only in the last twenty years at best and in most cases only in the last few years.
In summary, this article, despite its nuances, weaving and dodging, amounts to telling us that telling the truth upfront, in the language that the average person can understand, is wrong.
I don’t believe that.
——————
My latest blog post, Historians or Hoaxers, is here: KATANA
[http://katana17.wordpress.com]
I think that Liddell poses a very powerful challenge to your way of thinking, and you have not yet wrapped your mind around it. If nationalism is the political philosophy that best represents the common good of all peoples, in every time, in every place, then why do people like you or Anglin or a thousand others insist on linking it to a 12-year reign and a 20-odd year party in one nation in central Europe, including some of the darkest deeds in European history?
If a 19-year-old Pole were to sit down with you and explain his sense of political dissatisfaction with globalization, capitalism, and liberal democracy, would you really explain the nationalist alternative to capitalism and socialism by reference to Hitler? Is that what you mean by being plain-spoken and straightforward? Because to me it looks like a gigantic digression from the universal truth of nationalism down a very narrow, particularist, cul-de-sac somewhere in the past, a digression that often seems allied with or in service to obsessional and paranoid and self-defeating personality traits.
Nationalism is based on reality. So it can be explained and sold and maybe even put into practice based on reality. Explain to me why we need to digress from that argument, to take a detour from that straightforward road to success?
As for Holocaust revisionism, I see no reason to alter my argument in “Dealing with the Holocaust”: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/04/dealing-with-the-holocaust/
I have no quarrel with people doing revisionist scholarship if that is their thing. But I certainly dispute the idea that the fate of Jewish power and the white race hinges on their labors. It had better not, since even after one deducts all the lies so ably exposed by the revisionists, enough of a Holocaust remains for the purposes of Jewish emotional and financial blackmail. Better to just harden our hearts to the sob stories. Watch Miller’s Crossing if you want to know how to defeat the Jews. Holocaust accounting doesn’t perform as advertised.
Greg Johnson – Posted October 10, 2014 at 12:29 pm
“I think that Liddell poses a very powerful challenge to your way of thinking, and you have not yet wrapped your mind around it. If nationalism is the political philosophy that best represents the common good of all peoples, in every time, in every place, then why do people like you or Anglin or a thousand others insist on linking it to a 12-year reign and a 20-odd year party in one nation in central Europe, including some of the darkest deeds in European history?”
——————–
Liddell poses a piss-weak challenge to “vanguardism” by talking nonsense about straw-man neo-Nazis going door to door in uniforms canvassing the brainwashed masses.
The reason for the linking is straightforward. It is not us that link the two together, it’s our enemies that relentlessly do through untold zillions of non-stop pysch-war messages in the jew media ever since NS became prominent. They link White Nationalism with Nazism and the hoax of the mythical six million jews being gassed to death; being the greatest crime in history.
So what is a White Nationalist to do? Do we accept the lies, or do we expose them? Or do we take the happy chappy middle road and do neither? You’ve chosen a kind of middle road Greg.
Part of that middle road is be vague and waffling about the “Holocaust”. To be evasive and say things like you have said in the past, about not haven’t really studied it. Are you still of that position? Surely as an “intellectual” you finally have taken the time (a few months at most) to study the “greatest crime in human history” as touted by the jews to discover that it is a hoax? Apparently not. Is the “Holocaust” a hoax or not? Or do you remain committed to the farce that any jew suffering in WW II constitutes a “Holohoax”?
The high road of course is to act as a “vanguard” and expose the utterly evil lies of jewdom re NS, to link them with their continuing evil lies and their total control over our politics today.
Exposing the lies about WW II and the NSs in our jew run societies gives space for all others to promote White Nationalist, including organizations like UKIP, etc.
So, Greg, as a middle roader you and your lot are the ones who should be grateful for those leading the way.
——————
My latest blog post, Historians or Hoaxers, is here: KATANA
[http://katana17.wordpress.com]
Liddell is not offering a straw man. He is offering a dead on satire that illustrates the self-defeating nature of vatards.
Regarding the Holocaust, I don’t know how I can be any plainer: when you deduct all the hoaxes, there is still a Holocaust.
I think the enemy talks about NS and the Holocaust for the same reason that the toreador waves a red cape: it is a distraction that works every time. They want you to “go there” because there is a dead end. Instead defending the most defensible idea ever — ethnonationalism — they have you defending the indefensible.
Nationalism is based on reality. It is true at every time and place. It is the only defensible political philosophy. I know why the Jews want to link it to the Third Reich, but I am not sure why you continue to do their bidding.
Here’s my original sentence:
“The North American New Right stands for a vanguardism that is absolutely dogmatic about core principles but also maximally flexible and pragmatic — and thus potentially effective — about ways to communicate and actualize our principles.”
Here’s Katana’s quote and comment:
“absolutely dogmatic about core principles but also maximally flexible and pragmatic”
WTF is this? We have principles, yet we don’t!
With a bit of creative editing, he or she generates a contradiction and then unmasks it.
Greg Johnson
Posted October 11, 2014 at 1:08 pm
With a bit of creative editing, he or she generates a contradiction and then unmasks it.
———————-
Well, I apologize and stand corrected Greg.
There was no “creative editing” intent on my part. The “crime” sticks out like dogs’ balls when read in context, so I appreciate your restrained response. It was simply the result of a mis-reading and haste in posting my comment.
——————
My latest blog post, Living in Hitler7s Germany, is here: KATANA
[http://katana17.wordpress.com]
Well thank you.
Honestly, I don’t think Hitler had many excesses in the great and just mission he was engaged and from the mostly if not entirely defensive measures he undertook to protect, preserve, save, and advance the principal and fundamental interests of the White European man and his civilization. Contrary to such allegation, Hitler was in effect too humanistic, too lenient and clement toward his unrelenting enemies i.e. the Jews and Judaized England before and during the war while being admittedly and unfortunately harsh and exacting toward the Slavs. On the whole, Hitler is still a great hero and an inimitable and irreplaceable political leader of the White people, perhaps the greatest one of the last millennium. Hitler’s name and legacy will remain an inextinguishable shining beacon in eternity and any person with real knowledge, wisdom, modesty, and profundity will not bash, trash, disparage, or banish him. Hail to Hitler Forever and Ever!
I agree with you Hitler was the greatest and he existed, unlike Jesus who was a composite of many different Jesuses and many different religions. I finally made the conceptual leap as to why fascism was considered a left-wing movement in Germany, while in Italy it was considered a right-wing movement (correct me if I’m wrong). In Germany, Hitler empowered the people and overthrew the existing jewish hierarchy, thus creating a new German culture, in Italy Mussolini strengthened the existing institutions and focused the existing energies to ensure that traditional Italian elites and culture was maintained (I hate these run-on sentences). I would like to comment on how great all these intelligent comments are on this article, it gives me hope. Long live Hitler.
I want to point out that William L. Pierce covered this in one of his speeches. He stated that we could not pull a sack over the jews heads and sneak up on them this way. The jewish instincts and intuition for subversion are unparrelled. You cannot out-dissimulate the master dissimulators.
Well, Putin succeeded in that.
And what exactly has Putin done for the white race?
I agree with much of this article and wrote about similar ideas here: http://alternative-right.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/alt-white-maximising-not-mainstreaming.html
Great painting of Saint Joan in battle (even though she is ordering the killing of some ancestors of mine, probably). I looked up the artist and he did 3 oils of St Joan (although he was German, but Joan speaks to all nationalists). They seem to be in the Hermitage Museum in Russia. The first painting depicts her initial vision that galvanised her, and the last is – you guessed it, a very un-gruesome depiction of what must have been a very gruesome death at the stake.
http://www.arthermitage.org/Stilke-Hermann-Anton/index.html
Your article on how true vanguardism is neither headlong zealotry nor pragmatism but a judicious cocktail of the two is as good as those 3 pictures, in its very different way. It is easy for someone patient and non-abusive of the enemy to be written off as a pragmatist – but as you make clear, the arch-pragmatists are those who totally jettison fundamental principles for the sake of votes or popularity or just avoidance of jail etc. (My bete noire is Wilders who wants assimilation of immigrants – but still passes muster as some sort of extreme nationalist with most people, God knows how and why.)
I note that you do accept that we need a few martyrs. You don’t say this, but the drift of the article seems to me to indicate that martyrs are special – they are not just someone who has suffered for a cause, otherwise suicide bombers would be martyrs, and they are not, even to those who support they cause they died for. Their punishment is self-inflicted. This is wrong – to be a martyr you have to suffer punishment meted out by the object of your protest. Usually this punishment escalates as each unjust punishment makes you more determined. Again, this cannot happen with suicide bombing.
Anything incurring really serious punishment (probably not capital these days, but there are worse things) makes a martyr if the martyr actually does speak for thousands if not millions of people. Was Solzhenitsyn a martyr? I know little about him. But from what I know, he was getting toward the level of input required before self-sacrifice becomes useful.
I actually have several books on Christian martyrs, the best is one with a painting on each page for each martyr, done at a much later date usually, and a pithy sketch on the facing page of what made them bounce up to the Emperor or whatever and tell them they are out of order. Usually the Emperor reacts badly and issues a warning – this warning is ignored, further warnings are also ignored, so then wham! – the martyr is put to death and sadly often the entire household of the person sheltering them. This does not damage the cause – another hallmark of genuine martyrdom.
BUT martyrs are very rare birds indeed. I can’t make my mind up about what the rest of us should do, and in this respect your article raises more questions than answers – which is good. It is great to raise questions once you have your final DESTINATION mapped out firmly, exactly as you have set out (though I do wonder if Jews are such a threat as they enjoy appearing to be, don’t they just embody an aspect of ourselves that we try to resist, simply because many of them make no attempt to resist it as it gets in the way of material success).
Once you have your GOAL, then you can have various ways of approaching it. This is why we have Manifestos, Declarations, Charters, etc. Hamas has a Charter for instance – but I wonder how many other Nationalist Resistance groups do?
Of course a Nationalist Charter would look alarming on paper – the Hamas one does – so Nationalists are probably wary of writing down their aims, which may also be illegal. However if Hungary can deport people, so can any nation. Their Constitution must allow it – let’s have a look at it. The ECHR allows it too, in theory – if someone presents a threat to the nation. Well it is easy to maintain that all further immigration presents a threat to any nation in the world. The BNP makes an exception IN WRITING in its Manifesto for Europeans returning after a long Diaspora from North America, Canada, Australia, or indeed anywhere. This seems to be legal as well, at least in proposal form. Implementing it …… but as we have seen, Hungary can do what it likes in the public interest – so re-define public interest, and we have lift-off.
And the support for this stated briefly in a Charter could be absolutely overwhelming. People want to know where they stand – just like they want to know when the next bus or train is coming. The Front National etc. are like surgeons trying to do a major operation with a can opener. It is painful to watch as well as undergo, and will merely kill the patient (the long-suffering nation). On the other hand, if the surgeon is too obviously psycho and slasher-like, this is no good either. A lot of surgeons are pretty ruthless people – you have to be to start cutting into someone, however noble the purpose. But they are also on a mission – a mission to heal. This needs to be blindingly obvious before the surgeon gets employed, gets people to work for them, and gets the patient to sign the agreement form. How do you weed out the psychos from the messianic? Not easy – especially if it is a politician who has a way with words, not an actual surgeon. So people are wary of messianic politicians – yet at the same time, hungry for a messianic Manifesto.
The Hamas Charter is worth a look, I particularly like Article 12 which defines Nationalism properly and ties it exclusively to a Homeland (in this case Palestine):
“Article Twelve: Hamas in Palestine, Its Views on Homeland and Nationalism
Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his masters’ permission. This [principle] does not exist under any other regime, and it is a truth not to be questioned. While other nationalisms consist of material, human and territorial considerations, the nationality of Hamas also carries, in addition to all those, the all important divine factors which lend to it its spirit and life; so much so that it connects with the origin of the spirit and the source of life and raises in the skies of the Homeland the Banner of the Lord, thus inexorably connecting earth with Heaven. When Moses came and threw his baton, sorcery and sorcerers became futile.”
http://thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html
Having done this very explicit limiting of all activity to defence of a geographical region by the natives (i.e. totally unlike Zionism or Ugly Americanism), you can get very tough indeed without upsetting anyone except “the Enemy”. I am not sure if European Nationalists need to have a specific Enemy – they are not in the same boat as Hamas, or not yet anyway. But even without an Enemy, the Charter can pack a terrific punch provided it is clearly for the defence of an ethnic group or ethnic groups in its/their historic homelands.
The USA could never write such a Charter because the First Nations are still there (albeit drunk and obese now thanks to the dark side of a western lifestyle). But Europeans can. And as always in matters of law and justice, the outsider can often help where the insider can’t – so we are wrong to be wary of the input of Americans.
Hi Guys. I learned about your website from the “vantard” sites. The difference between the Daily Stormer and Alt. Right, Counter Currents, Occidental Observer,etc. is that your sites aren’t inspirational. They leave me feeling hopeless. I had planned on taking the blue pill and going back to sleep before I came across Anglin’s Total Fascism. Financially supporting people like Robert Ransdell gives me hope. He’s boots on the ground. You guys make me want to blow my brains out. Andrew and Robert make me want to fight. You’re all very smart but depressing. If this makes me the “lumpenproletariat”,whatever the hell that is, so be it. HAIL VICTORY!
Well, I don’t know where you’re coming from Marie, but it must be a dark place if Andrew’s troll dungeon fills you with inspiration and hope. I hope you’ll grow out of it someday. Keep moving toward the light.
“Thus to gain power, White Nationalists should not merely represent the interests of all whites, but we should also be willing address the genuine and just resentments of the masses against the existing elites, who will not be allowed to keep the wealth and power they have accumulated by dismantling white America.” – Greg Johnson
I hope this attitude never changes.
“…to have a WN writer, preferably one with practical experience in all these areas, to write regularly for CC or some other WN outlet.”
Some of us have experience in most or all of those areas and more, but our writing may require a proofreader.
Well, I am a pretty good editor, and we have an excellent proofreader. It would be nice to have someone do an overview article that lays out and connects a number of different lifestyle issues that might positively impact our community. Every good habit that becomes normative in the WN community gives us a slight advantage over other groups, and since we are betting on intensified group competition, with or without overall civilizational breakdown, we need to squeeze out every advantage. Although WNs wish to save our whole race, realistically, we have to accept that we are creating a new people — whites with a future — whereas right now, present trends continuing, our race has no future.
Greg,
Regarding your ideas on the practices of a White nationalist community in the comments above, I have a few suggestions and comments:
1. The idea of community needs to be properly articulated or subdivided. The ideas of David Ronfeldt on tribes, institutions, markets, and networks might be useful here.
We need to establish a community that forms the base for a “fighting collectivity of people,” to use Carl Schmitt’s phrase, and to do this well we need to understand community in broader terms than a fighting collectivity of people. As you note, it would be good to “make our community more resilient and independent, and also provide a softer side of white nationalism for wives and children.” We need to work outside of the box of institutional politics or conventional politics. We need to put the work of building a community within the view and the reach of the wide range of people who are needed to build it.
2. It would be good to establish some kind of clearing house for information on relevant subjects. I’m sure there’s plenty of information available on such things as simple living, self-employment, home schooling, and so on, but it can be difficult for those who are new to such things to find such information or to discern what sources are truly reliable, useful, and appropriate, given one’s circumstances and requirements. (One might say that it’s not a matter of reinventing the wheel, but of finding tyres which fit, which have a good grip, and which one can afford.)
3. Ideally, a variety of media would be used (such as webzines, blogs, and forums) for aggregating, selecting, adapting, creating, and disseminating the information needed by a White nationalist community.
4. Given the range of subjects, and the detail in which they can be addressed, I think more than one writer would be required, but it would definitely be good to have someone who can regularly write good articles and who can work with others as a developmental editor.
5. I’ve been thinking that I should search for literature on writing and design for instructional media, both print and web. Preparing such media to a high standard may be regarded as a discipline in its own right. (I’ve been thinking of such media more in the context of political activism than the subjects mentioned above.) Preparing instructional media is hard work.
I think it’s possible that Glen may have been thinking of concerns 4 and 5 when he wrote of the need for a proofreader. The people doing these things aren’t necessarily skilled writers. They may know a lot, but their knowledge may be tacit rather than articulate. They may have the knowledge in their head needed to write a book on a particular subject, but if they were to write such a book, it would require extensive editing.
“We need to put the work of building a community within the view and the reach of the wide range of people who are needed to build it.”
You have fleshed out some the idea for the most part , I have been been banding around , for a ‘Organic Self-Sufficiency Network ‘, as I call it
I would consider attempting an article but I am somewhat practically orientated
Dunno man, I really have to question the concept of premature populism.
This stuff is not really very complicated. We’re not leftist academics creating sky castles here. We’re mostly just talking about survival values. People are increasingly ready to accept the message, as everything collapses around them.
A lot of people are complaining about the Daily Stormer. But the Daily Stormer is incredibly popular, which shows that there is a demand for what they are putting out.
The fact of the matter is that there was a niche that was not being filled by the New Right *or* the Old Right, and they filled it.
Some people are into really long essays about obscure European philosophers. But some people don’t find that kind of thing particularly essential, given the simplicity of the principles of our movement.
Recently, something has been lacking in the movement. There was a tendency for populist sites to be more moderate, and oriented towards these sold out, mainstreamed parties. Key issues tended to be off limits on that sort of site. Meanwhile, more hardcore, serious sites had tended to drift in an academic direction, which only appeals to a limited audience.
There was absolutely a need for a site that was both populist (as in, entertaining and readable for the person who doesn’t want stuff written on an academic level) and hardcore. If the New Right doesn’t like the Old Right’s dominance of that niche, then maybe they ought to compete for it.
I don’t think that Alexa rankings matter all that much, particularly when a highly rated site offers little of value and clearly tends to be populated by people who waste their time in comment wars. I am sure I could increase CC’s Alex rankings by lightening up on the discussion moderation and allowing trolls, cranks, and hobby horse riders to hang out. But I would rather they be somewhere else.
I would like to see a site emerge that is simply founded on the four principles I outline above and focuses on weaponizing them for political commentary and activism.
“I would like to see a site emerge that is simply founded on the four principles I outline above and focuses on weaponizing them for political commentary and activism.”
I’ve had somewhat similar ideas, but admittedly haven’t developed them in any real detail. We certainly need a group of people who can weaponize, politicize, and popularize White nationalist discourse.
Some people think that popularizing White nationalism means using being vulgar and vicious, but there’s a big difference between the idiotic and the demotic, the obnoxious and the polemical.
Although White nationalist discourse needs to be articulated in relatively simple and direct terms, crafting effective discourse requires intelligence, skill, and creativity. Our message may be simple, but formulating it isn’t easy. Finding, testing, and selecting the right words, arguments, examples, imagery, and methods can be difficult.
In this context, intelligence is more a matter of judgment than of scholarship. It means addressing the political challenges facing our people rather than being erudite and recondite.
We need a discourse characterized by presence of mind and will.
White nationalist discourse should be a cultural weapon, created and wielded collectively by White nationalists. It should be the common property — to use the terminology of economists, a collective good — of White nationalists, and it should help to create a White nationalist political culture.
To weaponize or politicize White nationalist discourse, it might be said that one needs to give it an edge and a handle, and to equip and train White nationalists in its use. Giving it an edge means using discourse which is appropriate for our target audiences, which is polemical, and which is persuasive. Giving it a handle means making it accessible to White nationalists in the form of a discourse that is relatively easy to comprehend and assimilate, which is articulated in a range of media which one can readily obtain, study, and distribute, and which constantly proves its relevancy, validity, and efficacy (i.e., one feels that it is adapted to the times, that it enables one to better understand one’s environment, and that it helps one to communicate with others effectively). Such a discourse would increase one’s understanding of and confidence in the White nationalist cause, in one’s ability to articulate one’s beliefs and therefore fight for them, and in one’s ability to influence others and work with others.
It would be good to have a group of people who can put together effective campaigns, who can develop appropriate media content, who can prepare a range of print and web media to a high standard to support political activism, and who can provide effective assistance to activists. Such a group would need to master a variety of disciplines and media.
Not quite. People understand “racism” to be an irrational hatred and persecution of other races for having done no more than be of another race. In that case, it doesn’t amount to selling out to claim to stand against “racism.”
Now, people aren’t going to vote for you for what you have in common with other parties, but for what you offer that is different. But simply sharing common cultural assumptions with other parties won’t in itself disqualify you. For example, both Labour and the Conservatives believe taxes are necessary (and will say so), but there is considerable difference between the two regarding the desired level of taxation and the uses to which revenues should be put.
In this sense, an aspiring WN politician should not be considered to have “sold out” if he makes positive statements about non-whites. He should instead be judged by the effectiveness with which he draws attention to the problematic aspects of multiracialism, and the extent to which he wins support on this basis.
Also, I think you misunderstand dissimulation. The example you gave regarding socialized medicine to me seems a case of compromise rather than dissimulation. Dissimulation would be to pretend to support private health care but to do your level best to socialize it.
Fundamentally, a dissimulating mainstreamer’s objective is to get people to try on racialism, the way a salesman wants you to try on the suit. If you try it on you might find you like it, and you’ll then be willing to pay the price to own it. But if you don’t try it on the chances you’ll purchase it are much slimmer.
Decades ago when photocopiers first appeared a common sales tactic was supposedly to deliver a machine to an office and urge management to simply try it out for a month, free of charge. If they didn’t like it, no problem, the photocopier company would be glad to take it away; if they did like it they could then buy it. What do you suppose happened after a month with this wonderful new gadget?
It does amount to selling out on race when you declare that you no longer think British people are necessarily white people, or French people are necessarily white people.
I am all for getting rid of hateful denigration of other races. But Griffin and Marine go far beyond that.
I like the idea of having people try on white nationalism for size. Every time someone I know goes to an all-white city or region, that is how I am going to spin it. Want to try the nice white country we want to create? Take a vacation in ______________.
It is the flipside of: Want to see the future we are trying to avoid? Here’s a bus ticket to Tijuana.
That’s true. It’s very disappointing anyone would say that, and not least because it’s completely unnecessary. In fact, the opposition requiring you say it presents an excellent opportunity to go on the attack. Eg, “There’s a civic Britishness and an ethnic Britishness and to deny that the latter has a strong racial component is an explicit attack on British ethnicity. In fact, this is merely part of the larger anti-white assault that’s been taking place for decades now. I can’t very well go to Israel and tell people ‘Oh no, don’t be racist, Arabs are every bit as Israeli as Jews are’ can I? It’d be ridiculous. And it’s just as ridiculous – and spiteful, and downright evil – when it’s done to us.” Or something like that.
Your latter remarks remind me of a remark attributed to the science fiction author William Gibson: “The future is already here — it’s just not very evenly distributed.”
Great essay but I think that you are being far to dismissive here of Marine Lepen and her Front National. After all, certain “giving ins” are necessary if the struggle is going to be taken seriously and if there is a REAL possibility of getting into power. Above all, it is ONLY via the Mainstream that ideas like the ones of Counter-Currents will manage to be implemented. That Marine Lepen has succeed in the mainstream could only be reason for joy, why do you attack it? Overlooking some of what you so rightfully described as Dogmas is not synonymous of rejecting them. One does get the feeling that Marine will be nothing other than a hard-core conservative, but I have the strong feeling that she doesn’t communicate even half the things she has up her sleeve… It is parties like hers that appeal (as you also rightfully stated) not only to the inarticulate “right wing” (sorry, no better word comes to mind at the moment) working class -who know what they don’t want but not what they want or how to actually get there- giving them a mouthpiece, but also to the middle and upper classes who see their permanence threatened. Who knows what she’ll do when -and if- she gets into power? Her electoral program is far to extreme to be called in any way “mainstream” and it would precipitate the fall of the EU, the liberation -therefore- of Europe from the American world dictatorship, and well, the beginning of a new Era of a Europe of Nations. It is far to harsh to throw on her any sort “traitor to the cause” accusation. Ranting about the Jewish Question simply does NOT win voters, left right or center.
That sort of thinking – along with other topics like eugenics- only have acceptance among us undergrounders. But in the mainstream – the only possible stream- of politics, these things, in my view, should be “put on standby”. By having people concentrating in winning over the general public with messages and promises that affect her every day life, like Marine, we can hold the Greatest of Expectations that our ideas will be progressively shown to everyone. One can’t remain a dissident forever.
If you are a part of a front group, you are in a hostile work environment, etc. then dissimulation is fine. And, on non-essential political principles, it is acceptable to choose them based on electability, regardless of one’s real preferences, e.g., in the UK, I would be for the existing healthcare system, because it is popular. In the US, I would be for private healthcare, because that is more popular, even though I would prefer socialized medicine.
But if you are a political party working to stop the demographic displacement of our people, then you come out with denials of “racism” and love of immigrants, because they add diversity (“Salt in the soup,” to quote the loathsome Nick Griffin), then you have crossed the line into mainstreaming betrayal. You can’t lie about your first principles.
Why? Well, aside from the dishonor (and why would we want to be led by people with no sense of honor?), (1) it repels your most principled and committed and honest followers and replaces them with the cynical and the muddleheaded, (2) it destroys the reasons why someone would vote for you in the first place; why would anyone vote for you as opposed to all the other immigrant loving, non-racist political parties? and (3) such dissimulation never fools our enemies; in fact, it only fools our own people; do we really want to join in the voices who are to lying our people in order to herd them to oblivion? Or do we want to wake them up?
One purpose of vanguardist intellectuals is to constantly monitor politicians and keep them from betraying us on fundamental principles.
This article absolutely nails it. I’ve kept abreast of the various articles concerning this debate, as well, and they’ve inspired some novel thoughts and insights of my own. I’d like to present these below.
Whenever I hear ‘vanguard’ the associated image in my mind’s eye is of the idealistic youth. Therefore, when I conceptualize a ‘vanguard moment’ my thoughts are immediately drawn towards contemplating the question: “What will animate European youth to reaffirm their identity and fight for a better world?” (I take it as a given that the vital energy of any revolutionary movement — the engine propelling it forward — is provided, by and large, from the youthful elements of society.)
In my opinion, identitarianism will only begin to leap forward when it is wedded to something higher. In contradistinction to many self-identifying ‘white nationalist’ (a term I personally abhor) I see the founding of an ethnostate not as the end all be all goal…but only as a beginning! This is because, from my viewpoint, a homogeneous racial group is the prerequisite for all greatness, innovation, and advancement. What I’m really after…what I really desire is…two things: 1.) a just society; and 2) the upward development of mankind. In other words: a hierarchical society — that is with the word ‘hierarchy’ properly understood. Most people have a horrible misconception on what hierarchy truly is. Hierarchy is not some parasitical boss sitting around barking orders while contributing zero energy to the collective effort. Hierarchy is the best in society leading, pointing out the way, and being the first to set foot on the desired route. Hierarchy is not separate classes each striving for their own interest. Hierarchy is the organic totality functioning as one…with each individual in his proper place, determined by his own merit. And it should be said that the “best in society” are those with the brightest minds…with the most to give, that see the path to follow most clearly, who are the most courageous, and who have the power to command allegiance.
Now, in order for such a hierarchical society to be just it must adhere to the natural fact that different peoples (races) have different capabilities, different essences, and different destinies. Therefore, the ‘foundation’ — what the hierarchical society is built upon and over — is race realism. Race realism only has significance as being the dirt upon which the pyramid rest.
In order to convey this perspective effectively I believe it is necessary that the term we use to identify ourselves encapsulate it. Those of us already initiated into the worldview of the New Right know that everything I said above just IS identitarianism/the alternative right/white nationalism//the New Right. But, it must be said, we (the initiated) already ‘speak the language’, we know the intellectual history. The uninitiated youth’s idea of ‘the Right’ is the ever-capitulating conservative Christian, apologist for global capitalism and big business, Republican. The term ‘white nationalist’ is equally periled by its association with the vantard. Therefore I propose that we start using a self-identifying term that conveys our message accurately to the uninitiated. Such a term, I believe, to be ‘Aristocratic Socialism’. The questioning, dissident youth of European descent (the specific demographic which a vanguard project should appeal to) has in the term ‘Aristocratic Socialism’ something to inspire him. [It should be noted here that I borrow the term from Guillaume Faye. In “Why We Fight” he uses the term as a synonym and explanation of the term ‘meritocracy.’] After all, I can think of no other two terms which are more antithetical to America’s nature than ‘aristocratic’ and ‘socialism’.
Before I conclude I should also address another problem whose solving is absolutely indispensable. Until people of European descent see our position as an absolutely legitimate one to take at dinner parties and restaurants we will accomplish nothing. This means that they must feel able to express such sentiments AROUND people of other races. Our ideas are not to be defined as white against black (or Asian or Jewish); but as hierarchical (vertical as Colin Liddell is wont to say) against egalitarian. The ethnonationalist principle and a hierarchical conception-of-the-world are perfectly valid for all peoples. They have something to offer everyone. About a month ago, when the mass media was over hyping the “shooting of Michael Brown” story. I thought to myself: “What a perfect opportunity for someone to interject the ethnonationalist point of view!” For instance, immediately following the national media’s coverage of the riots and protest in Ferguson there were various town-hall style meetings of “concerned citizens” called in various cities. These meetings drew a limited number of, mostly black, people. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where an Identitarian of European descent with balls of steel showed up at one of these mostly black meetings of “concerned citizens”, waited his turn to address the assembly on the open-mic, and then delivered his speech:
“‘Racism is still very much a problem black people have to face today’ is a statement I’m sure you would agree with. So what then…What’s the corrective? More of the same? All of the affirmative action (race-based selection) and diversity propaganda/indoctrination seems to not be working. Every time the mass media over-hypes a story such as the “shooting of Michael Brown” then you’re sure to experience some feelings of apprehension over the possibility that racism played a role. But imagine a scenario similar to the incident involving Michael Brown and Darren Wilson, but in this case, a black teen (who has just committed a crime) is shot by a black police officer within an all black nation state. It would be obvious to all that racism did not factor in to what occurred. Racism would effectively be overcome.
Ethnonationalism is the answer. Ethnonationalism for all people. Spread this message far and wide. It should be painfully obvious at this point that we need to separate. This can be done amicably. But before this can happen people need to speak freely about it. They must feel able to speak about it without fear that it will be misconstrued as a provocation. I suggest that if you want to see a society where you don’t have to worry about racism that you become an advocate of the solution. Become a impassioned advocate of ethnonationalism for all people. This does not mean that you and I need to be friends or some sort of allies. No, it only means that both of us can stand on the side of truth against falsehood and dishonesty. For a black person to advocate for the collective interest of black people while simultaneously condemning a white person for doing the same thing for his people is hypocrisy of the highest order.”
Now, I should clarify, I think that other races and rapid egalitarians will continue to slander and vilify and would possibly physically attack anyone who dares express these opinions and views in public. Only the courageous will dare to speak openly about them. What I’m trying to say is that when someone contemplates expressing such points of view they see it not as white against black (or whatever) but as championing an idea: as hierarchy against equality. Of course the vanguard won’t waste time trying to convert other races, but neither will it feel amiss in expressing the Aristocratic Socialist worldview around them or to them if provoked.
To summarize: all of what I’ve said is only a change in emphasis from the views that the New Right already advocates.
These changes in emphasis are as follows:
1.) The establishment of an ethnostate should be seen as the beginning, not as the end goal. In other words, the establishment of an ethnostate is the prerequisite to all our goals.
2.) Ethnonationalism itself can only gain traction and appeal when seen as an essential prerequisite to the world we wish to create.
(Here I can’t help but imagine a hypothetical conversation between a rapid egalitarian and a conservative-minded white nationalist. The white nationalist is harping on and on about the importance of the “preservation of the white race”. The egalitarian is responding with, “Why? White people are responsible for Western Civilization and all its ill effects: capitalism, the plundering of the environment, consumerism.” We’ll leave them to their bickering. The Aristocratic Socialism transcends this false dilemma by stating that he doesn’t care anything about the preservation of the white race! He cares about the eugenic advancement of European man. He want to realize the potential latent in European man. He views Europeans as they are now as the alchemical prima materia to be transmuted into something higher!)
3.) We should self-identify with a term that relates our essence to the neophyte. That term is: Aristocratic Socialist.
4.) Essentially our struggle is a struggle of ideas: the hierarchical (properly understood) versus the egalitarian.
4.) In order for our ideas to make a broader impact it is necessary that they be seen as utterly righteous. Ethnonationalism and an hierarchical conception-of-the-world are the answers to the problems that our age now confronts. They apply to all people and can be spoken about anywhere in front of anybody.
Instead of praising hierarchy and elitism and attacking equality — because most people have to ask “What is in your elitism for me?” — I suggest our focus be on truth and justice. Justice leads to unequal outcomes for unequal people, merit-based hierarchies, etc. And everyone does have an interest in that. But hierarchy, elitism, and inequality divorced from justice are nothing to envy.
Hierarchy literally means rule of the sacred, which presupposes truth and justice by definition, and cannot be divorced from them in principle.
Yes, but the hierarchy in the bank, or the military, or the department of corrections has nothing to do with the sacred. Hierarchies are not intrinsically aligned with justice. So there can be just and unjust hierarchies. So defending hierarchy as such is a bad strategy. As is attacking equality as such. We want just hierarchies and just equality. Justice should be our key concern.
I agree with this and appreciate your perspective; but I still think there’s more to be said about the potential benefits of articulating a New Right conception-of-the-world to the curious, or newcomer, with the emphasis laid on a meritocratic system of governance — with ethnonationalism seen as a prerequisite and fundamental for such a system to be just.
This orientation draws in dissenting truth-seekers who are searching for the answers to the problems of our times (the target demographic of a vanguard); while, simultaneously, also somewhat limiting the pull on individuals who define themselves predominantly by what they are against. On face value the term ‘White Nationalist’ implies we are against living amongst other races. The goal is spelled out: a white nation. When this idea is unpacked by someone just exposed to the idea the pathway of least resistance is to explain it as: “This is for people that have an animus towards other races.” This has the negative effect of turning off people that would rather focus on defining themselves by what they are FOR rather than what they are AGAINST; while, simultaneously attracting the vicious, the hateful, and the stupid (the vantard). Moreover, the propensity towards Universalism, characteristic among Europeans (Kevin MacDonald has spoken much on this), guarantees at least an initial hostility towards “White Nationalism” — an idea that will (through the pathway of least resistance) be interpreted as preferential and unjust. By articulating our worldview with ethnonationalism seen as a prerequisite for our true aims — and applicable to all peoples — we move the focus and avoid a guaranteed initial misconception.
Of, course, the term ‘Aristocratic Socialist’ must be explained a bit. But I’d much rather spend my time explaining what I mean by this term than spend my time explaining how my ‘White Nationalism’ is so very different from the vantard’s (the type of White Nationalism EVERYONE knows). Another objection that I anticipate is that: “We need a ‘big tent’, not a specific platform, because we need everyone sympathetic to come together,” — to which, I completely disagree. This line of thinking is antithetical to the building of a vanguard. A vanguard isn’t about ‘mass appeal’. It’s about drawing the most energetic elements of society, particularly the young, towards a coalescence. ”
“Live with your age, but be not its creation; labour for your contemporaries, but do for them what they need, and not what they praise… Everywhere that you meet them, surround them with great, noble, and ingenious forms; multiply around them the symbols of perfection, till appearance triumphs over reality, and art over nature.”
— J. C. Friedrich von Schiller, Letters upon the Aesthetic Education of Man
The above “‘big tent’ objection towards a specific platform” is indicative of a divide running through the New Right/European ethnonationalist community. The divide is between the revolutionary and the conservative (psst, conservatives…there’s nothing left to conserve!). Isn’t it about time we, revolutionaries, differentiate ourselves? Shouldn’t we have a term all to ourselves?
There is more to be said about this (and I’ll elaborate if prompted); but, for now, I’ll leave with a question: “What does a White Nationalist become once an ethnostate is established?” My answer to this is: an Aristocratic Socialist.
(P. S. – Greg, I see you’ll soon be interviewed on a Red Ice Creations podcast! I’m looking forward to hearing it!)
There has been no shortage of genuine vanguardism in White Nationalism since the 1960s. Works such as “The Dispossessed Majority” and the aptly-titled “National Vanguard” gave a suitably intellectual foundation for WNs, while largely remaining free from the baggage of the Old-Right. Since then the internet has largely supplanted traditional publications for the dissemination of WN ideas, and there has been no shortage of people providing reasonable, modern arguments for WN.
While it’s true that vanguardism provides the only principles for white nationalism to succeed in the real world, it fails to give its exponents any direction on how those principles may actually be achieved. I’d go as far as to say that vanguardists suffer from the same pathology as mainstreamists, in that both ultimately want respectability. For mainstreamists respectability is attained through moderation and compromise, while for vanguardists respectability is attained through highfalutin intellectualism, which is highly admired in a modern rationalistic society, while at the same time not posing a real threat to the system. All too often vanguardists devote their abilities to evaluating past events, artistic mediums and current political situations, and while this is interesting, it is not constructive, especially when the number of people interested in our ideals is dwindling and when the problems we face are constantly exacerbating (not to mention it gets very boring and redundant after a while).
If vanguardists want to do something constructive they should devote their intellectual powers to the great question of our movement right now: How can a normal White person utilize their energies and labor solely to advance the cause of our people, while at the same time providing sustenance for both themselves and their family? A discomforting fact, that many WNs don’t realize or deliberately ignore is that contributing in any way to modern society ultimately, strengthens its power and has a negative impact on our people. Be it serving or being served by non-whites, paying tax money for redistribution to non-whites, building infrastructure and products to serve non-whites and to further contribute to the myth of progress, or owning a business which must serve and hire non-whites, it is impossible for a normal white person today to both survive and to reject multiculturalism through their actions. If a WN is brave enough to at least go out and challenge the system in the real world, he risks losing his livelihood and even jeopardizes the future of his family (or the ability to find a partner and raise a family).
Our ideology hasn’t changed much since the 1960s, and while vanguardists may indeed have brought many talented recruits into the fold, the inaction which plagues our cause has turned many more people off WN and has resulted in many sympathizers simply giving up. How can one be passionate about an ideology which has regressed constantly for decades and provides no real-world outlet? If someday WNs succeed, it will be the individuals who were willing to sacrifice themselves, who were willing to compromise when it was unimportant, who rejected the respect of the system they fought against, and who weren’t afraid of starting things in the real world with great risk of failure and ostracization, who history will remember. I’m afraid that, as of yet, I’ve not come across any of these individuals.
It is important to have not just vanguard ideas, but a vanguard community, a distinctive WN subculture and way of life. A lot of WNs I know are interested in different ways of living well without becoming too dominated by the present system. They prefer self-employment to working for others, especially large corporations. They garden and raise their own animals. They explore mortgage-free housing options. They are into homeschooling. And so forth. It would be a great service to our cause to have a WN writer, preferably one with practical experience in all these areas, to write regularly for CC or some other WN outlet. I think these sorts of ideas would catch on, make our community more resilient and independent, and also provide a softer side of white nationalism for wives and children.
It would be nice if there were a push to get WN’s to actually live near one another and establish an independent, physical community. Micro-manufacturing, almost any form of interest-free credit, and e-payment systems will make it feasible for a relatively small number of people to generate a respectable physical culture and standard of living.
I should say that this is in contradistinction to the model proposed by others, wherein WN’s move to a target area, find various jobs which all prohibit any sort of free expression outside of work, and generally live exactly as they would have anywhere else. For me, at the very least, a community is a group of people who rely on each other and work toward a common goal. And establishing independence, economic and otherwise, is a pretty cool goal.
If, in the next handful of decades, there is some sort of general shift in the way whites think, such an effort might prove unnecessary, but it would still be a lot of fun.
For my part, there isn’t much else to do. I’ll be starting my own farm here in the next few years, and I may try my hand at constructing in brick and/or half-timber. I’ve been experimenting with sewing as well and will toy with setting up a micro textile operation.
I completely agree with this.
I have a long held predilection for such activities as mentioned by yourself and Mr Johnson.
Indeed, I had mentioned on other sites and even sketched out an idea for a website/blog that could be a nexus for networking on such a multi angled basis vis a via broad based platform of Self – Sufficiency that would bring us all closer together as we work together
Good points but can we write off Mr Ransdell so easily and with such contempt? You didn’t even mention his name – the man who is behind the whole thing. He is too vulgar but some good may come out of his “With Jews, we lose” slogan. The signs are a bridge too far. David Duke was better and more tasteful of course. But at least Ransdell has courage and energy. Could Mr Liddell do what he is doing?
The other thing to come out of this is that apparently Ramz Paul is part Jewish on his mother’s side. He just discovered this awhile ago – like so many others supposedly do out of the blue. Thus he will always be conflicted in his interests – at best.
Unlike Ramzpaul, I don’t wish that Randsell would just shut up, although he is probably wasting his time. What good are courage and energy if they are spent on non-productive or counter-productive activities? Generally, Ramzpaul is a bit too much of a mainstreamer for me, but I like his work and notice that he seems to be evolving intellectually in the right direction.
You ought to refrain from spreading such unproven accusations on a public forum, especially when it is a significant matter of descent like this.
Perhaps you should have considered that the person in question is primarily known for his sarcasm, or that K1c1 is found in people all over Europe.
Well credit to Mr. Johnson. I find that he’s one of the few (if not the only one) who consistently stands in the perfect ‘zone’ for navigating our future course. Vantarding is often just an emotional (and nihilistic) release while maintarding is simply begging/hoping your enemies throw you a few scraps.
I think of the Daily Stormer as comedy. In a good way. They regularly make me (actually) laugh out loud with just a turn of phrase.
I ignore the nutty Christian stuff and the boring anti-gay stuff. I’m just there for the jokes.
And that’s all they can ever be. It’s pretty obvious they’re never going to break out of the comic book store they’ve built for themselves.
That said, there’s a real energy that comes from being completely beyond caring about borders and defensibility. With mainstream conservatives timidly fretting about keeping their anti-racist insurance, such outrageous poor taste can be an amusing relief.
I think satire is a wonderful weapon. Jim Goad, for instance, is a very useful writer. Linder was a treasure before he burned out around 2003. But I don’t think that The Daily Stormer is particularly funny, just juvenile and tasteless trolling. It reads like the work of 14-year-old meth addicts. We don’t need sites peddling Christian Identity and breathless Putinphilia to below average whites of all ages and classes.
As somebody said: Let a thousand flowers bloom: certainly within the context of Britain and Europe, every variation of White Nationalism has a role to play: the “softer” versions, as per Marine Le Pen’s Front National, for example: her electoral victories give heart to hard-pressed patriots in France and elsewhere.
Certainly, at the same time, there must be hardier souls who bravely champion all the four principles, as you have laid them out. Fortunately such hardier souls are not lacking.
As for the power that the organised Jewish community wields over the White nations, IMO that power can be broken by exposing the vicious allegation that the Germans during the Second World War murdered millions of Jews ( the “Holocaust”), as having nothing to substantiate it
Richard, thank you for your kind words. It was good to meet you in London.
Regarding your last paragraph, I have a different view, and I would like your take on my argument in “Dealing with the Holocaust”: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/04/dealing-with-the-holocaust/
Greg, in your article “Dealing with the Holocaust”, you conclude:
“The problem that afflicts our people’is their near-total demoralisation, their death-wish, their unwillingness to defend their own race, their low birth-rate, etc.; and these problems are psychological and moral in nature , and not historical. Thus holocaust revisionism is not the answer; and it is not necessary for White Nationalism. At best, it can supplement an essentially moral argument for White Nationalism. At worst, it distracts us from dealing with the deeper roots of Jewish power and white weakness.”
I will give here my contrary view. It is clear to me that the “Holocaust” allegation is the moral basis of the post-Second World War political order. Anyone who questions the justification of the two world wars is shouted down with the claim : “The Germans were monsters….” Any body who opposes mass Third -world immigration, is shouted down with: “You are a heartless, vicious racist, just like the murderous Nazis… ” We are all familiar with the enemy’s propaganda techniques.
Greg, You correctly write that the demoralisation of the White race has psychological and moral roots . So what are the psychological roots of the moral collapse of of our people ? I write here from a British and European perspective. It is clear to me that explanation for the moral collapse of European man (including the British) is to be found in the two world wars: the suicidal, fratricidal, genocidal world wars that the political class launched in the first half of the twentieth century, and which the political class to this day justify with their vicious ,self-serving, patent lies.
Any people who has such murderers and liars (Compare St. John chapter 8, verse 44) as their “leaders” are going to be sick, morally and physically sick. Hence our present state. Part of the solution is for some body to act the role of the little lad in Hans Christian Andersen’s story of the king who wore no clothes: Some body has to shout out: “Look, the King is naked…” It is my belief that the average man detests lies and despises liars; and when the king is seen to be naked, IMO the days of this political order are numbered.
So the campaigns of Historical Revisionism are absolutely necessary, but not in themselves sufficient; hence my admiration for Marine Le Pen and her Front National.
Another brilliant article! The only thing that I would add to the “absolutes” is that White Nationalism must not be mainstreamed into christianity. Christianity is not a white religion I don’t care what Lawrence Brown says. In order for any christian organization to be considered a white nationalist organization they would have to eject the old testament from their bible and identify and confront the jews as the principle enemy of the white race, that they will never do. In a word they would have to embrace “Marcionism.” They must twist their degenerative, materialistic creed to focus solely on the survival of the white race. Is it not amazing that in over 2,000 years they have not produced a cleric to lead from the front on the issue of white survival? As we come ever closer to extinction they still have not produced a spiritual leader who will suffer persecution and martyrdom for the white race. They always produce clerics to work for non-whites. What does that say about christianity?
Michael Hoffman II tries to keep the OT and the Jews, by arguing that these modern “Jews” are actually Talmudic imposters. Not sure if it’s only propaganda or serious.
Reconfiguring Christianity: The Saxon Heliad, for example. Also, the German Church movement, and Alf Rosenberg’s Marcion/Eckhart/Luther synthesis (which Evola thought was just crude anti-papism).
Prots consider Roman Church “secretly pagan” anyway, so why not go full tilt? Take over the Church from within (with “mental reservations” as the Church itself teaches). Cf. the use of Anglo-Catholicism by Decadents like Cram (vide my article on CC), John Gray, Rolfe etc.
It’s arguable that we can’t “re-invent” paganism anyway, so why not simply subvert what we have?
Christians have an almost 2000 year history of hollowing out and subverting institutions. The churches today are thoroughly corrupted. Meaning that any attempt by WNs to subvert them for our purposes will be detected and repelled by the current corrupters, by comparison to which we are rank amateurs.
I want to point out that Revilo P. Oliver made special observation that the jews sacrificed many lives to ensure that Catholicism included the old testament in their bible. There was a bitter struggle there for awhile until the jews won out and ensured that their version of christianity was imposed. Saul had an epiphany on the road to Damascus as he was contemplating the problems of Roman invincibility and christian dissident-ism (i. e, rejections of the old oppressive jewish religion). He realized that chistianity could be used to erode Roman spirituality and will to live, once he sold it to his brethren, “the rest was history,” as they say. A good fictional story of how it might have went down is the book “Horus Saves” which you can order from Amazon. I got mine from National Vanguard.
Funny you should say that Peter as when I saw Greg’s badge for the first time on facebook I thought it was a tribute to Lawrence Brown. I think that perhaps y ou exaggerate the foibles of Christianity. If it was only Christianity that was working to merge the races you would be right. Unfortunately Christianity today is run by the same mattoids that run the Trade Unions, Big Business, the MSM and the political parties. Universalism is a white thing and until we recognize that universalism is a white thing and concentrate, as the above article suggests , on recruiting from all social levels, individuals who are everything from Christians to Union believers we are going no place.
Thanks. I think your point is covered by the assertion that race, not religion, is essential to European identity.
Society (encompassing religion) is a racial construct. Therefore, religion as it is expressed by the people is an extension of race.
and secondly ‘race’ itself is a socio-racial construct leaving us with a loose and non-vicious circularity in out act of self-definition. we generate as we define as we generate.
the assertion about the sufficiency of DNA to account for ourselves and our peoplehood is incorrect.
‘we’ ‘are’ a metaphysic. we control how we express our selfhood and that includes how we express our genes.
Straight to the point. Good article. Spanish version incoming. When you have time check the emails I’ve sent you. Keep the good work.
Thanks, but let me tinker with it for 24 hours. I have already added one paragraph this morning.
Another good one, Greg. As usual, you have pin-pointed exactly my thoughts, as they have been over the last ten years, on an issue. I guess great minds think alike.
The debate over this false dichotomy, between radical clowns on the one hand, and bourgeois half-wits supplicating to out enemies, on the other, is tiresome and destructive. Surely, some people starting these debates do so out of malice, but some, I guess, just don’t know any better. Now we can direct people to this essay whenever the pseudo-debate arises again.
Thanks.
I can hardly wait to hear people say, “Excuse me, but you’ve mistaken me for a vantard.”
Greg, please explain therefore your championing of Savitri Devi and her pseudo-religion of ‘esoteric hitlerism’. Don’t you agree that her more outlandish views, however intellectually brilliant she may have been, nevertheless belong to the vantard?
I can see your point. But in the end, I am more interested in intellectual history than retail politics, so I am not as willing to travel as light as Liddell might prefer. But I can totally understand why BUGSters, Identitarians, and others might like to step over people like Savitri. The metaphor is a bit creaky, maybe, but I am on a longer journey than they are, so I can’t pack as light.
The trouble with being an intellectual – at least in England – is that the vast majority of people aren’t. I find Savitri a fascinating character, in the same way I find Crowley or Blavatsky fascinating, but I was thinking earlier today what my parents would have made of her. They were both children during the Second War and sat frightened in air raid shelters while the Luftwaffe bombed their home towns. My father was in the Air Training Corps as a teenager, his best friend was killed in a Lancaster over Germany, and he joined the RAF six months after the end of the war – luckily for me, or I might not have been born. The idea that Savitri Devi has something to say about the future of England and of the European people as a whole would be utterly abhorrent to them. Enoch Powell, yes, an Anglo-Saxon mistrust of Jews, yes, but esoteric hitlerism! Savitri belongs in the academy, relegated to students of the history of western esotericism. She and Serrano are toxic and can do nothing but damage to the NR.
Most people everywhere are not intellectuals, and I have no illusions about that. But yet intellectuals rule society, shape culture, and determine the direction of history though osmosis and trickle down effects.
Gerard, You write:
” I was thinking earlier today what my parents would have made of Savitri Devi. They were both children during the Second War and sat frightened in air raid shelters while the Luftwaffe bombed their home towns.”
With all respect to you and to your parents, your parents sat as terrified children in air raid shelters, as their home town was being bombed by the German Luftwaffe, precisely because the British war-leader , Winston Churchill, wanted your parents and every body else in Britain to be terrified and full of hatred for the Germans.
Within two days of becoming Britain’s prime minster in May 1940 (following the fall of France), Churchill ordered the unrestricted bombing of German cities located hundreds of miles behind the front lines; prior to Churchill becoming prime mister, the British and the Germans had deliberately refrained from the indiscriminate bombing of each others’ cities, and the civilians who lived in them. Churchill, who was determined to continue the war, had a political problem: Following the fall of France, and with the British people very wary of a repeat of the mindless slaughter of the First World War, there were powerful political forces at the very top of Britain’s Establishment who wanted to bring the war to some reasonable, negotiated end. This was the aim of the so-called “Peace party”, which had influential supporters in Churchill’s own government.
How did Churchill neutralise these reasonable voices calling for an end to hostilities ? He ordered the unrestricted bombing of German cities and their civilians; knowing, of course, that the Germans would exercise their right under International Law to retaliate, as after some months of this provocation, they did. All this was later officially confirmed when the British government published their account: Bombing vindicated. But in their great majority the British people have never comprehended that it was Churchill who cynically started the bombing, precisely in order to provoke the German counter-attacks, so that he, Churchill, could then denounce the Germans for their wicked bombing of civilians. By this means, the understandable clamour arose in Britain for retaliation, as they saw it, against the Germans; so by this means the Peace Party in Britain was silenced and Churchill got his war.
To this day, the British remain in ignorance of the fact that their suffering under the bombs of the Luftwaffe was wished on them by Churchill as the means to incite the hatred necessary to promote the war. As for Savitri Devi, she, brave woman, was trying to alert the British people as to the depths of deceit and depravity, that Churchillian politicians are capable of.
A very good article (especially bit about lumpenproletariat whites in movement). But only time and circumstances will push us in the right direction. As for now, we just have to network and be ready.
One Trackback
[…] Counter-Currents, октябрь 2014 […]