The latest emotional spasm in the media over Gaza is nothing new. The matter of Israeli brutality (which is largely beyond doubt) and the resultant, predictable outrage from the usual quarters, is so recurrent and predictable that it has practically become a Western tradition in its own right, with its own coded language and ritual and putative ‘outsiders’ who ‘don’t get it’. Criticism of Israel and Zionists is of course perfectly understandable and, if I were required to make the choice, Anti-Zionism is the only position I would be prepared to take. However, I have found that there is an additional, third option, which is simply to accept that each side, the Jews and the Arabs, have a right to fight for their existence. This is what is known as neutrality.

It normally involves not making any outward assumptions about the legitimacy or moral superiority of one side or the other and simply letting them fight it out. Some people may be persuaded to reject neutrality in this matter on the basis that ‘our’ governments are aiding the Israelis with military technology and what not, but these are not ‘our’ governments. Western governments are largely under the influence of the Zionist lobby. If they wish to supply and lend favour to their client, Israel, that is a matter for them, but no imperative arises from this for white people to take one side or the other.

I recognise that my view on this matter is likely to be in the minority among White Nationalists, however, in reality we can see that much of the vitriol and propaganda directed at Israel is based on a mixture of hyper-emotional responses and a conceit among people of varying ideological alignments that a calculated, Machiavellian response to Israel’s actions that exploits an emotional facility among the public will somehow serve some political interest or other.

I would like to suggest that these responses do nothing but serve the long-term ethnic interests of Jews, who have mastered the art of playing-off the two Western political extremes against each other. On the Left are the self-haters and the anti-white invaders, who either want to destroy the White Race or are indifferent to our genetic destruction and sneer at those who warn against this. Some of them are projecting their private hate of non-whites and working class whites outward onto those who hold a more or less truthful position on race and tell it how it is. Meanwhile, on the Right, you will see the more explicitly xenophobic type. The ‘Other’ may be white foreigners who arrive in my country to work or non-white immigrants. It may be Jews or liberal whites. It may be homosexuals. It doesn’t particularly matter. They just want something to hate.

At the moment, it is Jews who are the subject of the Two Minutes Hate, which is giving encouragement to the far-Right who think that the public are finally turning and ‘seeing the Jews for what they are.’ In fact, all that is happening is hate. Hate is an end in itself. It relieves the pressure of modernity, and provides an escapist target to distract from one’s own personal and environmental inadequacies and anxieties. It is also the perfect manipulative tool for those who have an interest in mass social control: in this case, the Jewish-influenced media.

Jews watching Gaza burn.
Zionism and Anti-Zionism are simply two sides of the same coin, used by nefarious influences in the West to manipulate us and keep us from seeing the European Gaza that has been created on our doorsteps. Whether this ‘Anti-Zionism’ is fuelled by liberal racial supremacism (known by media codewords such as ‘compassion’ and ‘human rights’) or base antipathy towards Jews per se, it serves to ensure that the dog keeps staring at the finger (the Gaza in Palestine) and not at where the finger is pointing (the Gaza in Europe).

That most whites appear not to see this is the ultimate testament and further proof – if it were needed – of a white penchant for altruistically serving the interests of others rather than our own kind. For the far-Right, white altruism over Gaza can be explained by a toxic alchemy of misplaced liberal racial supremacism (i.e. White Man’s Burden), Realpolitik about the potential of geopolitical Islam as an ally and check on Zionist expansionism, and last, but by no means least, a boiling, primal antipathy among the white-conscious towards Jews per se.

The far-Left, for their part – licensed by the media with a curious exemption that permits modish hatred of Jews at home and abroad – have an obvious ideological interest in attacking the notion of a Jewish ethno-state. Its continued existence is an affront to the liberal nostrums of internationalism and mixed-racialism. Not to mention that Palestinian Arabs, being brown-looking, are bound to attract the basic sympathy of soft-hearted liberal types.

Looking at this more objectively – i.e. without the Judaic distortion goggles handily provided by the media – if we can let go of our manipulated feelings of ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ for Jews, as the case may be, and simply observe the plain truth, what we see happening in Gaza is terrible and not something one would wish on these people, but for those of us in the West it is not our concern whether the Palestinians win out or the Zionist Jews manage to retain their sovereignty. By all means, civil aid can be provided to Palestinians who are suffering as a result of the Israeli onslaught. No humane person could argue with such efforts, and if people wish to boycott Israeli and Jewish goods and services, then that is all to the good and you will not hear any objection from me, but from a racial and political perspective, Gaza is simply none of our business. By pretending that it is, we are repeating the same mistakes that led us to the European Gaza we now face. We are allowing ‘white altruism,’ our supposed compassion for others – which I would suggest is in fact just a mixture of narcissism and a sense of tacit racial supremacism – to cloud our understanding of what needs to be done to protect and preserve what is left of white communities.

Moral masturbation in public: a popular White hobby
The question begged is how we should advance a real white racial agenda? I think we have to start by deciding who we are and, then, where we are going. Who we are may seem a curious point to begin, if not a little incongruous, and Nationalists especially are averse to disruptive heterodoxies, but unless we are willing to re-assess dynamically, from first principles, the aims and objects of white survival, then we risk ossification and irrelevance.

One question might be: Are we still a White Race or are we now just a tribe of hyper-racially aware dissidents who need to separate from the culturally deracinated masses? I don’t myself know the answer to that – it’s a massive question in its own right – though I suspect the answer is the latter, and I for one no longer consider myself a ‘Nationalist’ as such in any case (though I still use the term occasionally for brevity).

I began purposefully by discussing Jews and Israel, because those constructs are relevant to this question and are the source of how so many politicised whites, both on the Left and the Right, seem to define themselves. The Jewish identity seems to be the counterpoint of the white political identity. The white Left, expressing Jewish ethnic interests, are now consciously deracinated, if not conspicuously so, and believe that the rest of the world, including (ironically) Jews, should be like them, though they express this (self-)hate only tacitly and project psychologically by ‘blaming’ racially-aware whites, citing their ‘hate.’

Meanwhile, the white-conscious Right, affirming their ‘unJewishness,’ aspire for the ethnically homogeneous state that the Jews are sustaining. Here an interesting disjuncture arises. Jewish interests seem to be promoting for whites in Western society ideas and values that, on the face of it, might ultimately threaten the Jews' own ethnic survival; while Nationalists spend a great deal of time attacking Jews for exercising the very right that they, Nationalists, demand for themselves – the right to fight for racial survival – with the possible consequence that, if the Jewish state falls, any notions of racial or ethnic sovereignty might fall with it.

The apparent double contradiction is unravelled by realising that the Jews are playing us, not the other way round. Admittedly, it is a risky and dangerous strategy for them, but the stakes are high: if white people were to develop the kind of serious racial community that actually advanced the interests of whites instead of fake white altruism, Jewish influence (and lots more besides) would be threatened. Better to keep the ‘dumb’ whites distracted and manipulate what ‘racial opposition’ there is by giving Nationalists (and the far-Left dupes too) an easy target: the bandit Zionist State of Israel.

White vitriol against Jews serves the purposes of Jews. It distracts from the real issue, which is Jewish control of our own societies. It also encourages needless emotional tension and paranoia between race conscious whites, who begin to obsess about Jewish influence and even start accusing each other of being Jewish or defending Jews. What is required isn't ‘liking’ or ‘disliking’ Jews, but a cold recognition of reality and then appropriate action.

In this respect, it is perfectly possible to like Jews individually, even collectively, if you so choose, while retaining a firm, unshakeable view about their influence in society. It is also possible to admire Jews for their ethnic loyalty, and in other respects retain a balanced perspective on all things to do with Jews, while at the same time denouncing the ways in which they are acting to harm white interests. It is, furthermore, possible to resist slipping into the Jewish genocide narrative while at the same time understanding clearly the difference between right and wrong and that the vigorous exercise of racial morality and intra-group loyalty needs to give way at some point to obvious notions of respect and decency. It is also possible to move beyond reacting to matters racial with simple emotional responses, such as hating, condemning, and narcissistic grandstanding, and to instead construct a positive narrative that advances white interests on our own terms.

The symbiosis of opposites?
By hating, we are allowing our opponents – be they political Jews or whatever – to control us and dictate our agenda. By simply reacting, we allow our opponents to frame our agenda and even our very identity. The reactionary pathology is, however, deeply embedded in Nationalist political thought, largely I would suggest due to the dominance of the Right.

What is ‘Racial Nationalism,’ when all is said and done? I would suggest it is neither Left nor Right in character. It is, if anything, an ideology and governing philosophy of ‘radical centrism,’ simply an accentuated expression of what, anecdotally, we all know most normal people want: in this case, a community based on a shared identity. Another word for ‘radical centrism’ is fascism, and in truth, the former term is just a euphemism for the latter. For the white consciousness, the objective is racial fascism in the sense that we would have a community that is, for all intents and purposes, an extended racial family, with all the policy and behavioural strictures that flow from this, and in which the individual is an integral part of the whole and subsumes important aspects of his interest and identity to the community.

Most white people have been taught to instinctively recoil at the thought of a fascist society, yet what they do not realise is that they already live in one. What we live under today is a mixed-race fascism, or an anti-white fascism, as it might be termed. This system is the expression of the wishes of a minority racial interest in society, the Jews, and the non-white footsoldiers they have been brought into Europe to dominate us.

Mixed-racial fascism is successfully presented as the opposite of fascistic, in that it promotes the propaganda of ‘liberal democracy’ and the notion that we are required to think of ourselves and each other purely as individuals, allowing a vacuum in which there is no private or community-level sphere of action and significant power can be drawn to a strong state. Another crucial aspect of the propaganda of the mixed-racial fascists is ‘racial democracy,’ the idea that race is no longer (or should not be) considered a relevant factor in people’s lives, except to the extent that it might be used as a basis for suppressing or frustrating whites. The individuation of mixed-race fascism is largely confined to white culture. Other, non-white, groups are permitted to retain their racial and ethnic cohesion to varying degrees.

We can see that now the shared identity of whites is being lost, all talk among the ordinary populace of ‘democracy’ is revealed for what it is: a superfluous, childish fantasy. There is no ‘democracy’ for an ethnic group that cannot exercise its own culture. Instead, the suppressed group has to start complying with the norms, values and rituals of the invading group. This is almost a law of nature. Where this invasion is carried out ‘democratically,’ and is of a demographic and cultural character – as is the case in the mixed-race fascism of Britain and most of Europe – initially the signs of racial alienation will be subtle and difficult to perceive, but in time the marginalization of the indigenous host culture becomes obvious and blatant, even to the most obtuse mind. And as the white European public become more and more vocal and angry in their objection to these developments, those who were responsible will be nowhere to be seen when it comes to accepting the blame; but they will not be difficult to find, for they are your neighbours, your co-workers, your family – and the person you see in the mirror. We are all responsible for this mess, and the key to reversing it, or at least doing something worthwhile and constructive about it, still lies in our hands, if only we could see it.

Those of us in the ‘reasonable middle’ are neither Far Right nor Far Left, but instead we realise the sense of a realistic attitude to race, and are prepared to examine alien racial influence in our societies – including that of Jews. We also recognise that race is an essential precursor of culture and the basis of all that is good and positive in our society, and see ‘Nationalism,’ such as it is, as a vehicle for the resurrection of a European civilisation.

We are 'Nationalists by default,' rather in the same way that many in the former Soviet Union took refuge in free market Austrian School economics as a reaction to the excesses of Soviet state capitalism. But then nationalism is not usually an intellectual position. Its fodder is the emotional, reactionary flag-waving type who enjoys the comfort of being part of an identifiable sub-culture. Those among nationalists who do exhibit a more erudite or thoughtful disposition tend to emphasise a deeper, esoteric understanding of society and a sense of shared experience that is difficult for outsiders to grasp in a conventional, linear way.

The intelligent non-racialist/non-nationalist looks on and wonders what the sense is in continuing to base one’s politics on archaic ideas and constructs. It is, I would suggest, fundamentally a different mental attribute and character, rather than simply a difference in learning and experience, that leads to the nationalist intellectual rebelling against the canon. The intellectual nationalist simply does not want to live among other races, and constructs his reasoning retroactively from there.

Can exist without intellectual justification.
The difficulty is in intellectualising a position that cannot, and perhaps should not, be reasoned intelligently, because, in the end, this is about what is in one’s gut. It’s about who we are. I should not have to argue that I prefer to live among white people, nor engage in complicated academic discussions to justify what is, in reality, a perfectly natural position. The burden of proof should be on those who argue for, or allow, deracination.

In response to what is happening in society, the ‘Nationalist by default’ is focused on constructive activity and is not really interested in being part of a ‘movement’ or rebellious sub-culture. The accent is on ‘doing something’ rather than merely ‘being something.’

‘Doing something’ is difficult. It involves complexity and mediation with the real world. ‘Being something’ is easy. It need not involve anything more complex than attending a demonstration and shouting slogans at people, or maybe posting a comment on an online forum. I would suggest that much (but not all) of Nationalism has become the latter, with many activists bogged down in emotional ghettoes, futile oppositional reflexes and antiquarian esotericism.

The tendency reaches its zenith in the nagging persistence of overt, outright Hitler worship and Third Reich virtual tourism. It seems that some pockets of the movement have their own ‘TINA’ written into their political DNA: there is no alternative other than a visibly antiquated ideology that glorifies an Austrian-born German who shot himself in 1945?

The obsession manifests itself in different forms. There are the neo-Kuhnite North American White Nationalists with their paramilitary uniforms, black leather jackets, Hakenkreuz and Seig Heil salutes. There are websites that cater for them such as Daily Stormer, with its Teutonic imagery, recurrent wartime and Third Reich themes and repeated mentioning of Hitler. The great cruel irony of this odd sub-culture is that its portrayal of German ‘Nazis’ is fundamentally Judaic in nature and antagonistic to whites in that owes its genesis in the enemy portrayal of the Third Reich.

I was promised ethnic survival and all I got was a Nazi pony.
One article on Daily Stormer describes German Third Reich military uniforms as ‘cool.’ Indeed they are – on Germans who lived in the 1930s and 1940s. This is the year 2014 and most of us aren’t German. They don’t look cool on us. They just look silly.

It’s as ridiculous as a group of syndicalists running a website on current affairs based on the imagery of Italian Fascism and the personality of Mussolini. It smacks of mental and emotional weakness, an aping of the Judaic-Nazi Myth of National Socialist Germany, invented by the Hollywood System and Jews. None of it has anything to do with the historicity of that era, or with national-socialism, Nationalism per se or white racial consciousness, as I understand these things.

It is just street theatre, encouraged by people who are hostile to us, who wish to discredit us, and who want to dissuade normal, sensible white people from thinking racially by presenting those who do as deviants, ‘weirdos’ and outcasts. One also has to question the literacy of this ‘Nazi’ symbolism. If a form of American national-socialism were ever to be resurrected, it is much more likely to resemble something deeper in U.S. history than German-American nostalgia for National Socialists and a bunch of comic-opera thugs giving Roman salutes.

The whole basis of national-socialism (I use the term in its white racial sense) is that it must be culturally-consistent with its locality, otherwise it is not really ‘national.’ An American nation-socialism would be less Alfred Rosenberg and more Daniel Boone; less the Führerprinzip and more (perhaps) a Jeffersonian farmers’ democracy, or reflective of some other indigenous European civic influence. A national-socialism for Britain, likewise, would be something different and more reflective of the British experience.

I think this applies even if, like me, you reject nation-states as such, and dislike the nativist perspective, and think that the real nation is ‘white.’ Even in a less parochial, more ‘internationalist’ type of ‘Racial Nationalism,’ the political, social and economic character of white sovereignty will reflect the varying ethnic peculiarities of local experience. Hitlerian National Socialism was a result of the specific circumstances in Germany and Europe at that time, just as Japanese national-socialism (run for the last 70 years under an ostensibly ‘democratic’ system) reflects the character of those unique people who live on an island off the Asian landmass and call themselves Japanese. Same with Chinese national-socialism – otherwise known as Maoism, or ‘communism’ to those who believe in fantasies. And so too with Jewish national-socialism – or ‘Zionism’ to you and me.

No, he's not hiding a Hitler moustache.
That it is not to denigrate in any way the German experience, which is important and valuable and needs to be discussed, because of its importance and relevance to our struggle now. It is simply to recognise it for what it is: a local expression of a larger, generic idea that has empirical validity for all peoples. We could call this generic idea ‘national-socialism,’ ‘fascism,’ ‘democracy,’ or whatever you like, but the point is that to try and ape one specific example of it and turn it into our banner is not real politics and is not an intelligent response to mixed-race fascism. It is, really, nothing more than an exercise in rebellious chic, a kind of indulgent fashion statement for the petulant – that makes you look ridiculous.

The ‘nazification’ of Nationalism and the perpetuation of the Judaic-Nazi Myth has been a gift to our enemies. It has allowed them to portray a moderate message as ‘extremist.’ It has even opened the way for our enemies to nazify whiteness itself, to portray any overt expression of white consciousness or white interests as something vaguely relating to a particular period in history that everyone is taught not to like.

This conflates the cure – white political action – with a completely unrelated toxin, discouraging whites from thinking as a group and allowing the mixed-racial poison to spread unhindered in the vacuum left by the absence of an appealing Popular Nationalism. 

Much of this nazification is a reflection of a lack of self-confidence in our substantive political message, and with that a need to latch on to a historic period when, it is felt, National Socialism found full force and vigour. That itself is a myth, but the sense of anger and alienation among working class whites fuels the romantic retrospective, a pining for better times.

We can also ascribe deeper psychological motivations to neo-Nazi chic. People of an immature disposition can be led into Nationalism because they want to rebel against society in some way, and what better or more effective way to do this than to adopt an ideology that is reviled in ‘polite company.’ Others attach themselves to causes that ameliorate their own inner insecurities, and this especially appeals to downtrodden whites, who want to feel that they are equal to, or even superior to, others, including other whites who they can pretend are not as far-seeing or visionary as they are.

We should also bear in mind the way Hitler is mythologised by White Nationalists. He supposedly represents white consciousness at the apex of society, strong and triumphant. His memory therefore appeals to whites who feel the very opposite of ‘strong’ and ‘triumphant’: in other words, weak and emotionally-dependent whites who see their group identity under continuous and permanent assault from nefarious forces in modern society and want to draw strength from old stories of military glory, Pathé reels, and what not. It’s a comfort for people who want to be passively led.

Hitler was also in some ways an intentionally vacuous figure, as most really successful politicians are. White people can project themselves into him and he can personify their greatest hopes and dreams, whatever they may be. In all of this, a simple fact can be overlooked: Hitler is dead. He has been dead for 70 years, so unless a necrocracy is being planned or a way of resurrecting the dead has been found, it’s difficult to see his present relevance.

We are alive and, unlike Hitler, we must confront the problems facing white people in the 21st. century. The answer for us is not to become more marginalised and end up ghettoising our views. The answer is to build a new White Alternative that appeals to ordinary white people. That means looking forward not backward, becoming active rather than passive, turning away from reactionary politics and all its accoutrements – including leaders, elections, attackable structures – and building an ‘alternative politics’ based on white autonomy. It means moving away from ‘hating’ others towards giving our fellow whites a positive message.

Some people think ‘hate’ is good or useful in that it is a weapon or forms the basis of some kind of membranous racial defensive values. I think these notions are misconceived. ‘Hate’ and ‘Hitler’ are just weapons in the ongoing psychological warfare against whites. They work most effectively when they are paired together, and when combined with ‘Jews,’ they turn all white-conscious people into a moving target, regardless of individual sophistication, moderation, or reasonableness. The target is easily hit with the trigger words that the media have invented especially for us.

The reason the word ‘hate’ is invoked so much in a legal and political context is that it is acknowledged that to resort to hate is to admit that you have given in. It is a weakness, as it clouds reason. The accepted, legalistic definition of ‘hate’ is thus broadened out to all kinds of benign or relatively inoffensive behaviour and printed material so as to make it appear that racial arguments are insubstantial. If you hate Jews, then you are acknowledging that you are under the control of Jews.

The positive message has to be about white people. We can’t complain about others misrepresenting us if we are so determined to misrepresent ourselves by adopting or alluding to neo-Nazi imagery and ideas. We ought to be able to laugh off the Nazi epithet and dismiss our opponents’ jibes along these lines as ridiculous and exaggerated. We also ought to be able to ask our opponents:
"Why are you always misrepresenting white people as Nazis?"
That would be a powerful question under the right circumstances, and it would be difficult for our opponents to respond to it, but we can’t ask this because some Nationalists are still stuck in the neo-Nazi groove, and that is part of the problem. Casual neo-Nazi chic is pathological and runs deep in some pockets of Nationalism, but it also shows itself more subtly in the mainstream of the movement. 

A less politically damaging way for 
down-trodden Whites to feel powerful.
The main online discussion forum for White Nationalism is called Stormfront, which is an interesting name, to say the least. I believe the name was chosen innocently, as an allusion to the idea of a counter-cultural front that would cleanse Western society of mixed-racial influence, etc., but in reality, to the ordinary white, the name is Teutonic and alludes to the cartoon Hollywood Judaic-Nazi caricature. Why should this be a problem? Well, to someone who has always been a White Nationalist, it won’t be, but to an ‘ordinary person,’ the site looks weird and extreme. What we whites need more than anything else is to mainstream our message while maintaining our core integrity.

Stormfront probably attracts a lot of curiosity from white people who are suffering from cognitive dissonance – otherwise known as maturity – and there’s always a risk that the more independent-spirited among these ordinary folk will start to think for themselves, so the Teutonic imagery and the hostile character of sites like Stormfront hands a useful psychological weapon to our enemies, a Rubicon that acts as a barrier for dialogue between the ‘race-aware’ and those who are open to our message. Even the most critically-minded person will have difficulty getting past a name like ‘Stormfront,’ as it conjures up all kinds of mental associations.

If we are honest about this, presentation does matter. Of course, none of this would be a problem if ‘Stormfront’ was somehow a true reflection of who we are and what we are about. Is it? Is this the tone we want to set? What are we? What are we about? Here we come full circle, because these are the kinds of questions we need to ask and find answers to. Are we a comic opera company or a serious political movement?

Recently, Daily Stormer publicised an online poll for the "Smartest Person In History," urging its readers to vote for Adolf Hitler. This was clearly an attempt to draw attention to the supposed qualities of a 70-odd year old corpse, but I am not sure why I should vote for Hitler or any other historical figure. Dragging Hitler up from the grave doesn’t help us. We whites need to stop valorising these demagogues, both the dead and the alive ones, and start voting for ourselves. Instead of choosing between leaders who are dead and living leaders who are brain dead, let’s choose a White Alternative, in which – just for a change – we start building our own solutions and answers, from the ground up.

I have no idea if Hitler was the "Smartest Person In History," but the risk we run with this continued unhealthy obsession, not just with Hitler but with demagogues generally, is that for all our intelligence and achievements as a race, we are going to end up as the dumbest people ever. In a thousand years, no-one will remember White accomplishments unless there are intelligent White people around to speak of them. At this rate, all they will remember is that we were just another one of countless groups eradicated from the face of the Earth, or enslaved. That is what is really at stake. This is a fight for existence.

No comments:

Post a Comment